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.

I can't think of a game of any sort I've ever played that didn't benefit from getting familiar with the mechanics by playing it.

 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.

Watch out for the trap I fell into, despite "bases dont matter" they do, I brought 40 chariots led by settra, we got absolutely stomped into the ground by the Corn bloodmonkeys,. the sheer size of the chariots and their relative fragility caused bottlenecks ( using the RoB from GW, those moulded hills caused a " Kill pocket") IT is tempting to try to keep the distance and shoot, but I recommed going right for the throat, or bringing some horse archers to back up with mobile fire. If you are really looking for epic charges though, the skeleton horsemen are the best in the army at that, especially if you bring about 60 of em.

I will give the player made point systems a look when I have time - and unfortunately the direct above post seems maybe too true. Never mind the "pay to win" factor that seems to have crept into the games that wasn't quite there despite the hobbies significant cost before. Again I have just recently returned and each match I played seemed pretty good for points.

I appreciate you directly responding to some of my concerns. I am going to reply without quote blocks as they annoy me. Sure eldar and Tau can do some lame things but I still think they can be beaten using the right tactics and, as is important for both players, luck at the right times.

I don't mind if balance is a bit flawed - as long as it is consistent . Upgrading to a combi melta is going to cost me the exact same every game. I will know I can honestly, within the system, use those points elsewhere for a better chance to win if I think it is possible. There is a concrete balancing mechanism that while perhaps not perfect is exactly the same from opponent to opponent and game to game. I don't understand how a strategy game can exist without this. I could easily say one Defiler Seems equal to three Helbrutes. Point crafting within my own forces is something I enjoy. I'm all for some sort of unbound, unbalanced competition - where it belongs, not in a tabletop game.

I don't have time to play test as well as play. Usually I work 60 hour weeks. Sometimes I only do 40-50 and then I can spend time exercising. Some weekends I just like to paint and model, sometimes I spend a few hours playing. That is besides doing other things.

Overall I feel the entire game is being simplified and the lack of points ties directly into this. You had to think to figure out some good unit combinations and the right way to upgrade your guys wisely before. Now everything is the same, it's force fed to you, and people run very similar forces and formations. Sure formations are cool but I sort of miss the old way and complexity, having zero points just takes that to the extreme.

If I win a crushing victory with my self balanced Khorne 40k army, as I did in some tournaments back over ten years ago (granted they were only 1k point games) should I be handicapping myself or should my opponent be rethinking their strategy ?

The simplification part is where I think I have the biggest issue, the game while "simplified" to 4 pages, is not simple. the warscrolls wording compared to the core rules wordings mixed with " just decide between yourselves" concept is horrible, I like personally being able to play with complete strangers at a game store if able, this game is just awful for that, way too much time is wasted before armies ever hit the table, and it is a big deal with our GW having 2 tiny tables and everyone trying to get a game of 40k in, ( before anyone says "go play at another store" I will point out our GW is the only store in town that lets you play AoS, its banned everywhere else ((though to be fair, most of them ban ALL GW)) mix that with a store owner who couldn't be bothered to read and comprehend those 4 pages being a pest and giving flagrantly wrong info, makes it a mess. seriously you can keep the "no points" just make your ruleset clear and concise. balance can come later if the rest makes sense.

 thekingofkings wrote:


Watch out for the trap I fell into, despite "bases dont matter" they do, I brought 40 chariots led by settra, we got absolutely stomped into the ground by the Corn bloodmonkeys,. the sheer size of the chariots and their relative fragility caused bottlenecks ( using the RoB from GW, those moulded hills caused a " Kill pocket") IT is tempting to try to keep the distance and shoot, but I recommed going right for the throat, or bringing some horse archers to back up with mobile fire. If you are really looking for epic charges though, the skeleton horsemen are the best in the army at that, especially if you bring about 60 of em.

Disclaimer, I thought I'd never have a conversation with you considering your position on AoS but I'm glad we can have one about this!

So, noted. I haven't got them out of the box yet and neither I have bought the bases. Which one did you use? I wanted horsemen aswell but in the end I just got the minis to make the Royal Legion of Chariots warscroll formation plus Settra. I can't wait to assemble it all.

 Haechi wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:


Watch out for the trap I fell into, despite "bases dont matter" they do, I brought 40 chariots led by settra, we got absolutely stomped into the ground by the Corn bloodmonkeys,. the sheer size of the chariots and their relative fragility caused bottlenecks ( using the RoB from GW, those moulded hills caused a " Kill pocket") IT is tempting to try to keep the distance and shoot, but I recommed going right for the throat, or bringing some horse archers to back up with mobile fire. If you are really looking for epic charges though, the skeleton horsemen are the best in the army at that, especially if you bring about 60 of em.

Disclaimer, I thought I'd never have a conversation with you considering your position on AoS but I'm glad we can have one about this!

So, noted. I haven't got them out of the box yet and neither I have bought the bases. Which one did you use? I wanted horsemen aswell but in the end I just got the minis to make the Royal Legion of Chariots warscroll formation plus Settra. I can't wait to assemble it all.

my bases are half and half, so that added some of a "mess" when trying to pin the little ______ in combat, this was one of my very earlier fights before we started using just battallion boxes for a while ( which IMO are the balanced forces, them and the "starter forces from IOB and BFSP) the first battle with the Corn bloodmonkeys was pure chariotry, it went....poorly. again the size of the models worked against me, the second time was only 15 chariots, but 30 horse archers and 20 horsemen ( in hindsight I should have used more horsemen and fewer archers) that battle actually used not a AoS scenario, but one from "a shadow in the east" called "Strange Circumstances" it went better, but the speed of the horses can get you caught off guard as the chariots cant keep up. they do hit alot harder, but for capturing objectives the horsemen are the best that army has to offer, holding the objective is an entirely different matter., the horse archers are good at being a pain in the ---- but they have to have room to manuever. that fight was also a defeat, but more to dice than actually being outfought, Corn is more intense infantry so fairly easy to dance around, but if they catch the TK, they are toast, and thats what happened, the Realm of battle board tends to put alot of bottlenecks which are death sentences to fast armies.if you are seriously going to build into tomb kings grab horsemen while you can, I havent seen the legions formation, back then we just had the downloads and the GW staffer would not allow me to use settra to be the king in the formation, I had no other chariot mounted king ( warsphinx was always my mount of choice) I am not sure if adding a mounted heirophant would help or not) the 2" difference in movement can quickly outpace, especially with the archers ability "like the desert wind" .. I commanded the tomb kings in both of those fights.

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:I will give the player made point systems a look when I have time - and unfortunately the direct above post seems maybe too true. Never mind the "pay to win" factor that seems to have crept into the games that wasn't quite there despite the hobbies significant cost before. Again I have just recently returned and each match I played seemed pretty good for points.

Rubbish. 'Pay to win' is not something new thst has crept in, it's something thst has always been there.

Regarding each match you played bring balanced, bear in mind you have admitted you play very casually and essentially do not push the system to any level where it falls apart. This will happen the second you take decurion against blood Angels, or whatever

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:
I appreciate you directly responding to some of my concerns. I am going to reply without quote blocks as they annoy me. Sure eldar and Tau can do some lame things but I still think they can be beaten using the right tactics and, as is important for both players, luck at the right times.

Thry can be beaten by other similar power builds thst play at the same level, but that list is small. And there are quite a few faction for whom any game in an uphill struggle under the best conditions, regardless of you having the tactical nouse of the likes of sun Tzu.

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:I
I don't mind if balance is a bit flawed - as long as it is consistent . Upgrading to a combi melta is going to cost me the exact same every game. I will know I can honestly, within the system, use those points elsewhere for a better chance to win if I think it is possible. There is a concrete balancing mechanism that while perhaps not perfect is exactly the same from opponent to opponent and game to game. I don't understand how a strategy game can exist without this. I could easily say one Defiler Seems equal to three Helbrutes. Point crafting within my own forces is something I enjoy. I'm all for some sort of unbound, unbalanced competition - where it belongs, not in a tabletop game.

And what happens when gw prices defilers at half the cost that thry are actually worth, and makes hell brutes cost three times what they should? Both of which frequently happen in gw games. Let's be clear, I support the use of points, when they are used right, but within the gw 'ecosystem' using them as a metric of balance is an exercise in futility, and you might as well just not bother with the points and just eyeball it half the time.

If you don't understand it, you should try it. Speak to some historical players and see how thry play their games. You'd probably be surprised that the approach can work and can be quite enjoyable. Like I said, plenty historical games don't bother with points, and historically speaking, 'pointless' games was how wargaming originally began. Saying it doesn't belong in a table top gsme is a bit short sighted. It just sounds like you are so immersed in 'one way' of playing wargames, and thinking this is all they can be about, thst you can't see beyond the walls you've built up.

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:I
I don't have time to play test as well as play. Usually I work 60 hour weeks. Sometimes I only do 40-50 and then I can spend time exercising. Some weekends I just like to paint and model, sometimes I spend a few hours playing. That is besides doing other things.

I can understand this, all too easily. When I play games without points with my mates it's usually after work on a Friday. Both have 12 by 6 boards in their garages and we often play our games over a couple of weekends. I often find the diy/home brew games often take time, a bit of organisation and a like minded approach to the game. Time constraints are not its friends. It's not necessarily good for a 'pick up and play' approach, (but then again, it doesn't need to be, since other games fill that role) and for me at least, games like warmachine are vastly superior for the ease of 'just getting on with it'.

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:

Overall I feel the entire game is being simplified and the lack of points ties directly into this. You had to think to figure out some good unit combinations and the right way to upgrade your guys wisely before. Now everything is the same, it's force fed to you, and people run very similar forces and formations. Sure formations are cool but I sort of miss the old way and complexity, having zero points just takes that to the extreme.

What 40k were you playing? 40k has always boiled down to a bare handful of lists (third was either rhino rush, or shoot the rhino rush, fourth was 6man las/plas and skimmer spam, fifth was tankhammer, sixth evolved into spam flyers, and so on) in every edition every codex boiled down to a bare handful of ways to play. A lot,of the time, you could call 75% of a players list just by him saying 'I play faction x'.

If anything though, zero points doesn't take it to the extreme, it does the opposite. What it does is put the emphasis on the players in terms of 'how' thry are going to play. It requires a like minded approach, a bit of consideration, a co-operative mindset to build a fair match up (rather than the codex says its legal, therefore I will play it with no qualms, tough monkeys thst you can't face sixty scatter laser bikers and my wraith knights with your marines). You can still build your good combinations and you can still build your interesting themed lists (just as easily as points based games). It's just now, you don't get any bonus for abusing the system (and I refer to 40k here, not points in general).

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:
If I win a crushing victory with my self balanced Khorne 40k army, as I did in some tournaments back over ten years ago (granted they were only 1k point games) should I be handicapping myself or should my opponent be rethinking their strategy ?

Both?

Depends on what you want out of it really. Did you win because you played better, or because he had a lousy list, or an outdated codex? Was yours one of the power codices of the time? Thst might colour your win a bit, eh? I remember playing tournaments back in fourth against iron warriors, and there really was very little I could do against it due to how shockingly overpowered thst codex was. Rethinking your strategy would mean 'buy iron warriors'. Same Is true for folks in third, fifth, sixth and the current edition.

Points were introduced in historicals for the purpose of running fair tournaments. They are backed up by army lists, so players don't have too much flexibility in choice of troop types.

Other historical games usually take known orders of battle, or use die roll tables to generate armies that reflect the original historical make-up.

DBA gives you a standard size army, 12 units plus a camp, but it's not designed as an accurate simulation.

I started in historicals. Typically a game master set up the forces. When you allow people to cherry pick units thats when the issues arose. There were many a heated argument in our historicals camp over people not taking historically accurate armies and instead going for all elite armies that never would have existed, because game theory states that if given the choice between a normal ordinary unit and an elite unit, a human will choose the elite unit vastly more than not.

Points are a good way of balancing. GW-Points have never been good at balancing, thats why the ridiculous "meta" exists and has existed for decades, and if you aren't following the "meta" you are going to have a hard time enjoying your games unless getting curb stomped doesn't bother you.

There are lots of ways to set up historical battles. A GM is one. Points are pretty popular especially for tournament rules but they always come with restrictive army lists, to avoid the min-max problem you noted.

Other systems are to use pre-determined tables to roll up a realistic army, or to use an original OrBat.

I cannot believe that even after all that time, there are STILL people who keep beating the "points systems don't allow for casual no-points" fallacy and claim that not having a points system is a change that allows for more freedom.

Just...seriously, someone, please, tell me how this is a thing after...what? Half a year? It has been the most stupid argument since the very beginning - it's downright wrong.

Everyone claiming that you now have more freedom with the "ability" to eyeball armies is just wrong. Hands down, period, no discussion. You're wrong. If you think that a points system doesn't allow for eyeballing, then you are the problem, not the system.

A good points system is vastly superior to any non-points system in all regards. It allows for /exactly/ the same things and then some. A bad points system is the same as eye-balling, but even a bad points system is better than just eyeballing as it allows even people with little to no experience to come up with a relatively balanced army and once they do gather experience, they can just make amendments on their own to balance the game out. Ye know, like competitive play has been doing for DECADES.

It's amazing how fanboyism can blind any rational thought. The horse is dead, people. Accept it.

I don't agree with or accept that, you ain't half in love with your own opinions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are lots of ways to set up historical battles. A GM is one. Points are pretty popular especially for tournament rules but they always come with restrictive army lists, to avoid the min-max problem you noted.

Other systems are to use pre-determined tables to roll up a realistic army, or to use an original OrBat.

Plus historicals are much easier to eyeball because you're dealing with humans and the laws of physics. One block if elite infantry is largely the same as another block of elite infantry. You don't need to worry about things like magic buffs or vastly differening equipment or toughness.

Indeed, it's fine to say that it's your belief that points are the only way to play but you really shouldn't judge everyone else with different opinions as blind fanboys.

Different people have different tastes.

to be fair, we are all fanboys/girls in some way or another or we wouldn't be on a forum talking about little plastic men, but yeah, if the argument was over, then AoS would not have come out and there are quite a few games in historicals that never used points.

Oh, I'm a fanboy, big time. I'm just not blindly playing something I wouldn't want to play otherwise just because GW said so.

I play what I enjoy, we all do. That's basically why we're hobbyists.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I cannot believe that even after all that time, there are STILL people who keep beating the "points systems don't allow for casual no-points" fallacy and claim that not having a points system is a change that allows for more freedom.

Just...seriously, someone, please, tell me how this is a thing after...what? Half a year? It has been the most stupid argument since the very beginning - it's downright wrong.

Everyone claiming that you now have more freedom with the "ability" to eyeball armies is just wrong. Hands down, period, no discussion. You're wrong. If you think that a points system doesn't allow for eyeballing, then you are the problem, not the system.

A good points system is vastly superior to any non-points system in all regards. It allows for /exactly/ the same things and then some. A bad points system is the same as eye-balling, but even a bad points system is better than just eyeballing as it allows even people with little to no experience to come up with a relatively balanced army and once they do gather experience, they can just make amendments on their own to balance the game out. Ye know, like competitive play has been doing for DECADES.

It's amazing how fanboyism can blind any rational thought. The horse is dead, people. Accept it.

Amen

It's an incredibly ridiculous argument.

Herzlos wrote:


Plus historicals are much easier to eyeball because you're dealing with humans and the laws of physics. One block if elite infantry is largely the same as another block of elite infantry. You don't need to worry about things like magic buffs or vastly differening equipment or toughness.

My thoughts exactly. I've played both point games and non point games, and eyeballing it this way always worked out better for my personal enjoyment.

As regards humans and the laws of physics, in any game units obey the laws of the rules.

One block of elite infantry is largely the same as another block of elite infantry because the rules define them as fairly equal units, elite and infantry having meanings that are defined by the rules. This is easy to relate to actual historical fact because historical rules try to emulate the real world.

However in SF/fantasy, the second elite infantry unit might have a rule that makes them invisible in certain conditions, and let's them move twice as fast when invisible. You can't easily eyeball the effect of these rules from their appearance or stats, without working through the chain of logic and algorithms that governs the unit's combat performance.

All the more reason, therefore, why a fantasy game needs some kind of way of judging the relative strength of units.

I disagree. It doesn't take a lot of work to compare Phoenix Guards and Black Guard of Naggarond. Or Dryads and Witch Elves. Wrathmongers and Retributors.

I totally understand if some people don't want to go through it. I love looking at unit stats and rules, and I like eyeballing balance way better than min maxing points.

 Haechi wrote:
I disagree. It doesn't take a lot of work to compare Phoenix Guards and Black Guard of Naggarond. Or Dryads and Witch Elves. Wrathmongers and Retributors.

I totally understand if some people don't want to go through it. I love looking at unit stats and rules, and I like eyeballing balance way better than min maxing points.

It takes a complete understanding of all of the special rules and synergies associated with each unit, so either a huge amount of mathhammer, or playtesting. Work that GW could have done for us and distilled into some sort of...err...points system.

Plucking 2 random examples from the GW site. How do Vulkite Berzkers compare to Vargheists?

It might seem easy to you, if you're an AoS veteran with lots of games under your belt, but what if you're not, and have never played before (therefore a balanced start is more important).

How about an example using Warmachine, so you lose the familiarity of AoS which makes the decision seem much easier. How do Iron Fang Uhlans (Khador) compare to Bane Knights (Cryx)?

Without understanding the game (where new players most affected by lack of balance are), it's almost impossible to guage balance by eyeballing it. The same applies to historics; it's just easier because we know about history, and the units are much more constrained.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Indeed, it's fine to say that it's your belief that points are the only way to play but you really shouldn't judge everyone else with different opinions as blind fanboys.

I'm not sure anyone is saying that. As far as I can tell, the pro-points people are saying you can do both, but points help get started with balance. The non-points people seem to be saying that the only way to play any game is without points.

If they've only played GW games, I can almost see where they are coming from. They are wrong, but I can understand it.

Herzlos wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:
Indeed, it's fine to say that it's your belief that points are the only way to play but you really shouldn't judge everyone else with different opinions as blind fanboys.

I'm not sure anyone is saying that. As far as I can tell, the pro-points people are saying you can do both, but points help get started with balance. The non-points people seem to be saying that the only way to play any game is without points.

Little bit of spin there.
For a lot of people, AoS is their first experience of a game that doesn't use points or similar as a balancing mechanic.
I haven't seen any of the 'non-points people' stating it is not possible to play a game if you use points; they are mostly stating that it's not impossible to play a game without and then getting over excited when people say it is.
The tone for some of the 'pro points' people is that it should be down to the player to decide if they want points or not, which kinda renders the whole point of a game not using points moot.

Herzlos wrote:
It might seem easy to you, if you're an AoS veteran with lots of games under your belt, but what if you're not, and have never played before (therefore a balanced start is more important).

You are aware that AoS is less than a year old, right? So everyone currently playing AoS has had exactly these problems within the last year, and has had it through every release since, and made it through their first game.
And, for the most part, these people already had large armies of some type so they didn't have the yard stick of starter set or battalion boxes as a rough starting point.
Yet there are a large number of people who seem to get it.

Yes, it is possible to gauge balance on paper, but you only find out if you got it right or wrong once you actually play.
I don't know a vast amount about warmachine, but even when I was regularly-ish playing I had people telling me to never bother with Jack X or unit Y because they weren't 'worth the points'. Which bummed me out, because it always seemed to be the stuff I thought looked/sounded cool.

RoperPG wrote:

Little bit of spin there.
For a lot of people, AoS is their first experience of a game that doesn't use points or similar as a balancing mechanic.
I haven't seen any of the 'non-points people' stating it is not possible to play a game if you use points; they are mostly stating that it's not impossible to play a game without and then getting over excited when people say it is.
The tone for some of the 'pro points' people is that it should be down to the player to decide if they want points or not, which kinda renders the whole point of a game not using points moot.

I can't think of any pro-AoS argument on points that wasn't along the lines of "removing points gives the freedom to do what I want" or "points were broken anyway".

I get that it's liberating and refreshing to go pointless, but the undertone here has been that anyone who wanted points is playing it wrong, or a power gamer "that guy", rather than accepting that some people want points and that you can just ignore the points.

You are aware that AoS is less than a year old, right? So everyone currently playing AoS has had exactly these problems within the last year, and has had it through every release since, and made it through their first game.
And, for the most part, these people already had large armies of some type so they didn't have the yard stick of starter set or battalion boxes as a rough starting point.
Yet there are a large number of people who seem to get it.

There have been people saying they've played 100+ games of AoS now, some that have just said they play at least weekly (so at least 30 games). I think it's fair to say that some people have played AoS enough now to get a chance of eyeballing balance, but that's largely my point; an awful lot of people haven't.

Yes, it is possible to gauge balance on paper, but you only find out if you got it right or wrong once you actually play.
I don't know a vast amount about warmachine, but even when I was regularly-ish playing I had people telling me to never bother with Jack X or unit Y because they weren't 'worth the points'. Which bummed me out, because it always seemed to be the stuff I thought looked/sounded cool.

Some things won't be worth the points, but that's an issue with the points values for that game, and not with points in general. I'd also imagine that in some cases the unit is worth the points because of some reason. In any case, points at least give you a reference point from which to start eyeballing. I'd have no chance of setting up a balanced game in Warmachine without referring to points. I could probably do so in AoS because I've got 20 years of on-and-off familiarity with the WHFB universe to have some idea (and I think this is part of the cause of the bias here). Whilst AoS is different, the mechanics are largely simplified from WHFB, but the units presumably work in a similar way. Dwarf Longbeards are still going to be stubborn veterans and so on.

Herzlos wrote:


Plucking 2 random examples from the GW site. How do Vulkite Berzkers compare to Vargheists?

It might seem easy to you, if you're an AoS veteran with lots of games under your belt, but what if you're not, and have never played before (therefore a balanced start is more important).

How about an example using Warmachine, so you lose the familiarity of AoS which makes the decision seem much easier. How do Iron Fang Uhlans (Khador) compare to Bane Knights (Cryx)?

Without understanding the game (where new players most affected by lack of balance are), it's almost impossible to guage balance by eyeballing it. The same applies to historics; it's just easier because we know about history, and the units are much more constrained.

- Imagining this is part of two armies and not just two units I'd say you need around 15 Berzerkers to match 3 Vargheist. But most importantly, once we've settle for this amount, neither me or my opponent would be mad if the fight went either way.

- I started as a beginner, and balance didn't matter either. My very first game was a demo game. I took the Bloodbounds and got my ass handed to me. I immediately recognized what I did wrong, and what to do differently for the next game. I had a blast. My first home game was Stormcasts vs Dark Elves, with roughly the same amount of models, wounds, and heroes. The Stormcasts got utterly destroyed and we had fun nonetheless. We adjusted and played some more. I don't understand the recurring argument of anti AoS people where if you get destroyed in your initiation game you will never want to play again. Why? Have you never lost at anything before? Especially something you played for the first time?

- I've never played Warmachine, but I'm pretty sure after reading the rules and looking at their stats I can figure out. Here we're talking about a game where the rules are on 4 pages and all the unit stats are available for free to anyone.

- If you don't understand the game yet, maybe the focus should be put on understanding it rather than finding a good balance no? Where new players are most affected by balance? The first Wh40k games I ever played had no balance whatsoever. I had 10 space marines and I rolled some dice against whatever was there. If those are truly new players we're talking about, then no, they won't give a gak about balance. Only experienced players care about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:


I can't think of any pro-AoS argument on points that wasn't along the lines of "removing points gives the freedom to do what I want" or "points were broken anyway".

I get that it's liberating and refreshing to go pointless, but the undertone here has been that anyone who wanted points is playing it wrong, or a power gamer "that guy", rather than accepting that some people want points and that you can just ignore the points.

Because there's no arguments to have. It's pro-points people who try to demonstrate post after post how and why a point system is superior. I'm having fun without points and I don't need them.

 Haechi wrote:


Because there's no arguments to have. It's pro-points people who try to demonstrate post after post how and why a point system is superior. I'm having fun without points and I don't need them.

A points system /is/ superior. This isn't up to debate. It is objectively better because a points system allows for both points and non-points games, thus pleasing more than one audience. Whether you, personally, like it or not is another matter, but objectively, having a points system is better than not having one. The sole reason for AoS not having one is a huge amount of reduced work / effort by GW in order to save time / money.

Herzlos wrote:

I can't think of any pro-AoS argument on points that wasn't along the lines of "removing points gives the freedom to do what I want" or "points were broken anyway".

That's a little different to what you originally claimed

Herzlos wrote:
The non-points people seem to be saying that the only way to play any game is without points.

Whether a game does or does not have a composition mechanic, you still need to play it to get a feel for that composition.
It's this ongoing assessment of balance that results in local metas and discussions about units being under/evenly/over powered; if composition mechanics were 'perfect' people would never have to sacrifice aesthetic for efficiency and net listing wouldn't be of any value.

With points or a balancing mechanic, this just means that some units normally never get to see the battlefield, because the points value of the game and units doesn't change.
I know it's not impossible, but you never regularly see discussions like "I've got an Ungor force, is it okay if I take an extra 20%?". The game is still a 2k point limit, the unit still costs x points, if the player doesn't think it's worth it it doesn't make the cut.

Eyeballing takes time and game play to get it down, but if you accept that's what you're doing then starting by balancing on wounds, keywords, models or nothing at all is immaterial, because that's all it is - starting point.

Balancing mechanics are only as good as the company or players that come up with them, and has been pointed out for some time GW suck at writing them in popular opinion...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Haechi wrote:


Because there's no arguments to have. It's pro-points people who try to demonstrate post after post how and why a point system is superior. I'm having fun without points and I don't need them.

A points system /is/ superior. This isn't up to debate. It is objectively better because a points system allows for both points and non-points games, thus pleasing more than one audience. Whether you, personally, like it or not is another matter, but objectively, having a points system is better than not having one. The sole reason for AoS not having one is a huge amount of reduced work / effort by GW in order to save time / money.

This seems fairly naive to me. Your attempt at objectively stating why one system is better than the other ignores the forest to focus on the point tree. As I wrote before, the direction a company gives about its product matters a great deal in influencing how that product is used. The world's not as simple as you portray it.

Reduced work (work that also seems only to add strife among the players and never seems to sort itself out) and cost could have been part of the reason for AoS, but do you really think the reasons for switching systems ended there? I think it was clearly strategic and probably took a ton of meetings and internal debates and justifications.

In terms of GW, I think it's fairly easy to see why some of the changes in AoS were made by reading the 40k forum.

 Sigvatr wrote:

A points system /is/ superior. This isn't up to debate. It is objectively better because a points system allows for both points and non-points games, thus pleasing more than one audience. Whether you, personally, like it or not is another matter, but objectively, having a points system is better than not having one. The sole reason for AoS not having one is a huge amount of reduced work / effort by GW in order to save time / money.

Of course it is up for debate.

The way a a game presents itself, and in particular what is seen as the standard way of playing has a huge affect on how the game is played and by whom and whom will be turned off by it. One of the pro point arguments is that the points system allows you to easily play a pick up game with a random stranger in a store, apparently the main USA way to meet and play. That same argument is also the big weak point, it means you are turning up and just playing the same thing every time. That is what each person is expecting. Those who don't want to play the same 1500pt battle week in week out have to try and persuade some random stranger to do something different, and ignore the points. There is a big hurdle to get over. The pro points guys are happy with that hurdle for those who want to play differently.

There are no shortage of points systems, turn up choose and your points system and go for it. Engage in the same pre-game discussion with the other guy you think is perfectly fine for the no-points guys, the difference being you choose a points system they choose scenario/story.

The no points game system does not in any way preclude using your own points system. It is almost certainly better, as your own points system will be tuned to how you want to play and not tuned to how some designer thought you would play. You can tweak the points on the fly as you discuss and resolve balance issues. You can ensure it balances your local meta etc. If your locals play small games you can balance points to that, if they prefer large games you balance points for those. If you want something other than straight battles you can balance points to account for what will be good in your type of games.

The problem with points is that they are only good for the one scenario they were designed for. What works for a 1500pt battle does not work for a ambush scenario, or a breakthrough scenario or a victory in death scenario. It probably doesn't even work for the 500pt battle or 3000pt battle, as different sizes make certain units more or less potent relatively.

So the question would be, if AoS has points then what scenario and size and terrain rules etc etc should those points have been designed around?

You talk of losing pick up games as though it's no big deal. As a gamer who has moved country twice in 6 years and moved city 4 times, it's really nice to be able to easily get a PUG.

It was one of the things that made me keep my GW armies even though I was no fan of the rules at the time. I figured I could find a GW shop and get a PUG in any city, even with my limited German.

Now GW have made every PUG require a fairly lengthy negotiation. Since I have no group I have no established norms and so would need to talk it through with any potential opponent before I could even TRY the game.

Since I'm not too bothered to do that and will just play Saga or KoW instead now, GW have lost me as a customer.

Your "I'm alright Jack" attitude is fairly annoying to people like me, who have multiple painted Fantasy armies and a long engagement with the setting. I'd like to be able to play the game, and that was one of the things that lead me to not sell off my armies a few years ago. But GW's decisions have made that difficult for me at the same time that Mantic put out a book specifically to accommodate people like me.

. That same argument is also the big weak point, it means you are turning up and just playing the same thing every time. That is what each person is expecting. Those who don't want to play the same 1500pt battle week in week out have to try and persuade some random stranger to do something different, and ignore the points. There is a big hurdle to get over. The pro points guys are happy with that hurdle for those who want to play differently

This is also my experience. Point systems main two draws are: tournaments and pick up games.

Often in my experience both of those venues rely on the same basic scenario or a derivative of the same basic scenario and indeed it becomes playing the same basic derivative of scenario over and over, but that is also what a lot of people like.

They can buy an army for that scenario and not have to buy anything else.

Moving to another scenario may mean they have to get more units and that is where a lot of people gripe.

Its the hurdle I myself have had to overcome for many many years when trying to organize campaigns that move beyond pitched battle.

"Those scenarios aren't balanced or fair" is a condensed version of , when you dig down into it, really saying "i don't have the army for that type of scenario and don't want to buy and paint more units for that scenario, and the default scenario is what people are supposed to play so I don't like that you are trying to put scenarios into the event that I have to buy more models for".

Picking up a fan made comp system for AOS is not desirable for those players for a similar reason: its not official. They want to buy a force for the official rules and stick with that and know that that is universal and global no matter where the hypothetically go. Its hard to talk about tactics and strategy when there are different comps that change that up.

Selling fan comp is a very difficult sell, and always has been

Selling a system that requires talking to your opponent has also gone over poorly because the market doesn't want that. They don't want to talk to their opponent. They want to roll up to a game, deploy, play, go home without potentially having to say a single word.

Now on the flip side there is a growing number of people starting to embrace the new direction but after 20+ years of the tabletop gaming experience solidifying around tournament point systems and fully supporting pick up games where campaigning and what not are a side thought, to switch up and now require it has caused a lot of bitter resentment.

The divide from which I doubt will ever heal; see also D&D vs Pathfinder.