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.

(Dan Heelan runs the SCGT and does the Heelanhammer AoS podcast)

I'm more interested in the campaign syste system...

Good news.

But the question really should be asked. Who thought it viable to have no balancing mechanism at all when they launched it?

I appreciate they are doing something about it, but I am still at a loss as to why anyone thought not having something there from day 1 would be in any way a viable approach.

And even more people involved from the podcast/tournament Community:




Automatically Appended Next Post:
...and confirmation that even "squatted" armies will get Points!

NoggintheNog wrote:
Good news.

But the question really should be asked. Who thought it viable to have no balancing mechanism at all when they launched it?

The CEO that boasted about not doing market research and not asking their customers what they wanted.

Thank the Emprah he's gone.

The word "balanced" just brought tears to my eyes

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
The word "balanced" just brought tears to my eyes

Good or bad? After all, it looks like GW are going to be outsourcing on this...

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Oh hey, they finally realized that the game needs to be playable as a pickup game without major house rules.

And to anyone who thinks that the standard way of playing the game going forward is anything but the points system, I just have laughter for you.

haha, I see your laughter and raise you a raspberry Actually, I do expect at this point going on the very little we have that Matched Play will indeed be very big but I hardly see any "scene" I end up in with no option for Open an Narrative. Maybe do a Match game to prep for a Match event but we are quite happy using SCGT or Clash comp now without anything else. We shall see. But this announcement is good news.

I'm really interested to see how they handle this. I suspect that they recently decided to speedily introduce a balancing system with points after they realised that not having one was a real barrier to entry, and so we probably shouldn't expect books - since they would have been arranged years ago. Probably a new section on the app? Anyway, to explicitly have a three-way division in gaming - random fun, competitive, narrative campaign - has always been my impression of the best way to handle the GW fanbase. A lot of people really do like not having points - and by subdividing the rules in this way, they can keep on playing that way. The Narrative rules also could be really interesting, and we might hope to see a Mordheim-style game mode coming out.

The real question will be 'how good are the points?' Having tournament organisers involved will be really good for helping to bring balance to the force, er, I mean the game, but the degree to which GW follows their advice remains to be seen.

I was actually considering playing age of Sigmar the weird balance issues had me skeptical. I will definitely say this is a step in the right direction if it actually makes things balance. I don't say this too often but kudos to GW for doing that

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
The word "balanced" just brought tears to my eyes

Good or bad? After all, it looks like GW are going to be outsourcing on this...

It's a step in the right direction, so they are good tears

Outsourcing is not a bad thing so long as the result is an improvement.

Is the outsourcing an admission by GW that they can't write balanced rules even if they wanted to?

 Charles Rampant wrote:
I'm really interested to see how they handle this. I suspect that they recently decided to speedily introduce a balancing system with points after they realised that not having one was a real barrier to entry, and so we probably shouldn't expect books - since they would have been arranged years ago. Probably a new section on the app? Anyway, to explicitly have a three-way division in gaming - random fun, competitive, narrative campaign - has always been my impression of the best way to handle the GW fanbase. A lot of people really do like not having points - and by subdividing the rules in this way, they can keep on playing that way. The Narrative rules also could be really interesting, and we might hope to see a Mordheim-style game mode coming out.

The real question will be 'how good are the points?' Having tournament organisers involved will be really good for helping to bring balance to the force, er, I mean the game, but the degree to which GW follows their advice remains to be seen.

Arguably they did a wise thing; let the community create the best fit for them and then appropriate it.

GW has had issues in the past in that they create a system and the community adapt it to their needs as a tournament game, it not really being the milieu of their lead developers in days gone past (messers Priestley and Johnson). So an interesting approach it would seem.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Is the outsourcing an admission by GW that they can't write balanced rules even if they wanted to?

At least they realize their limitations in this, because I honestly do believe that they are genuinely unable to do such a thing.

Better to admit you are unable to do something, then attempt to do it anyway and create a sub-par product.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Is the outsourcing an admission by GW that they can't write balanced rules even if they wanted to?

Or alternatively, they're working with the community that a) has an established independent balancing system ready to adapt, b) has a ton of data to work from given the events over the last year, way more info than GW would get working from their own playtests!

Working with the community to improve the game isn't an admission of anything, it's simply taking advantage of a resource that's there. Mantic to essentially the same thing with their Rules Committee and open Beta testing of their games.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Is the outsourcing an admission by GW that they can't write balanced rules even if they wanted to?

Or alternatively, they're working with the community that a) has an established independent balancing system ready to adapt, b) has a ton of data to work from given the events over the last year, way more info than GW would get working from their own playtests!

Working with the community to improve the game isn't an admission of anything, it's simply taking advantage of a resource that's there. Mantic to essentially the same thing with their Rules Committee and open Beta testing of their games.

Indeed, which makes this that much more of a step from GW's than a simple admission of "our rules suck, guys". It's the reversal of several years of ignoring the community.

Let's see where this takes them.

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:

NoggintheNog wrote:
Good news.

But the question really should be asked. Who thought it viable to have no balancing mechanism at all when they launched it?

The CEO that boasted about not doing market research and not asking their customers what they wanted.

Thank the Emprah he's gone.

Kirby was in no way at a level to give a toss about rules or points or how minis looked, it will have been his underlings, viziers and wormtongues, now there's a new CEO, the new positives will be coming from the people he's elevated and started listening to. Rowntree seems to have cast down those he found of little merit and elevated those he wants to forge a new direction for GW.

Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:Is the outsourcing an admission by GW that they can't write balanced rules even if they wanted to?

It's not 'outsourcing', it's collaboration and listening to feedback, that's commendable, let us please, dear god, not start snarking them for doing the right thing now they're doing it...

I only played one game of AoS, mostly though due to time restrictions but whilst I wasn't fond of the simple attacks although I loved LoTR as a kid which was essentially the same i.e. roll 4, 5 or 6 to kill them so I am not sure why I would be bothered by this. The game was treated like LoTR for the basis of the campaign so every model was a separate unit which made the 'I go, you go' combat deceleration a pain in the ass. It certainly wasn't bad though. Three players Stormcast, Dark Elves and myself as Khorne in which I (temporarily) teamed up with the elves to make up the wound count of the Stormcast. Overall fun narrative play.

I would be so happy if the 'balanced' play went as smoothly as I hope as it gives me an excuse to finally assemble all those VC models I had before End Times finished. I didn't play enough to say points are needed or not but for me it just felt weird not having a structure system for army list and hopefully this will bring more players in.

I am devastated The Old World is no more and what I would give to see it again even stuck in the End Times period. I do really like the AoS lore so far so it would be nice to see it progress more.

Good on GW though, I love the stuff they are doing now.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It's not 'outsourcing', it's collaboration and listening to feedback, that's commendable, let us please, dear god, not start snarking them for doing the right thing now they're doing it...

As you wish...

Honestly I hope they do it with 40k, too. 40k could definitely use a more balanced "matched play" format.

Darn, with all the naysayers I waffled on it being points when I was absolutely convinced earlier . Shouldn't have been chicken!!

This is such great news from GW. Shows that they're listening - they even reference internet reaction at the end of the announcement!

I'm really impressed. Good job GW, keep it up!

Putting my personal feelings aside (it's too little too late, and as a TK player I've been shafted) I do think this is really good news. I DONT think this is going to have all the ostracized fantasy players running back, but I don't think that's their target. It only made sense (because it literally cost them nothing but time and the paper if it gets printed) to offer points as an option, and to echo other comments all they had to do was look at what the community had already done and adapt.

I've updated the OP, let me know if I missed anything!

It seems it will be some kind of SCGT pool system.

If you followed last SCGT, you know how fun and balanced their comp is.

We´ve been playing with it and its a blast.

Objectives, kill points, hidden agendas and battleplans makes it very hard for a cookie cutter list to overwhelm the others.

A gobbos-based army won the event.

I think the more exciting aspect of this is the community engagement, even more so than the points. I mean, when I played locally, we effectively already had points available via the community systems, so not a huge practical change for us.

But the engagement on FB, acknowledgement of the community, etc, represents an attitude that casts everything in a positive new light.

And now you get a 1 click bundle for the top 3 SCGT lists

Secure victory against any opponent with this battle-proven force.

A top-three army from the recent South Coast Grand Tournament, created by Tom Mawdsley.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/An-Alliance-of-Plague

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Warhammer?N=102295+4294965182&Nu=product.repositoryId&qty=12&sorting=rec&view=table&categoryId=cat440002a-flat

Very excited! Almost feels like the Emporah has returned!

I actually think that's kind of a good idea of offering bundles for winning armies, as it ties product to community events. I'm sure there are gamers that would want this. If they will Google winning lists then they'll damn well want to buy them.

Of course a discount would be great too.

Holy gak... a Games Workshop responsive to customers??? Age of Sigmar wasn't working for many (most?), and fans and community leaders did a commendable job building a working points system into a game which wasn't meant to have one. Now GW has announced using these same talented individuals to develop the game further in a meaningful way???

Kevin Roundtree is absolutely making Kirby his bitch, and in the last year has begun course-correcting GW into a company which engages with fans, is responsive and willing to change direction when mistakes occur, etc...

Kudos in general. I think I might even need to go get some Orruks (ugh... ok, I still won't use their awful IP protected names).

Turns out you can polish a turd.

Now all we need is a supplement where they un-explode the proper background and somebody to paint "We did a very stupid thing" in 1' high letters on the outside of GW HQ and all will be well. Or better, at least.