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.

 Hulksmash wrote:
My personal issue, and reason I didn't get into AoS out of the box, is that I have very limited gaming time. Events are best but if not events then I need to know I can get a game in. No structure is a lot of work for most people. Especially GW players who (in the seeming majority) have only really played GW so points and structure is something they've always been handed.

This is part of it for me. I actually liked the look of the models out of the box so bought them (and getting a really good deal). The game as is was easy enough for my son to pick up so now this is all gravy for me.

And we all know how good gravy is

 Cruentus wrote:

I still think you're missing the point. I'm in agreement with Kan here. In 40k they already had "apocalypse" in the game system as an 'optional' way to play. And no one did. So they rolled it into the main game to much "comping in tournament" and complaining. Then they release AoS without points, leaving it to the players to sort out their armies to play pick up games. Then tournaments try to "balance" it, and GW picks uthe mantle. But once they release an "official" points system for the game, no one, or very few people, will actually play the casual or original version. The "balanced" points system will be seen as "official" and thats all anyone will want to play.

In groups who have enjoyed playing the original AoS, their players will fragment as the original players will still play original, but some number will only play with points, thus fragmenting the system. Thats the point.

Even with external help, I'm going to be cautious around any claim of "balanced" as it pertains to AoS. It was nice to be able to play it with a handful of models if I wanted, now we'll see a growing "pool" as games get larger and larger to fit all the neat and balanced toys into army lists for tournaments. Again, cautiously optimistic, but I was already enjoying and will continue to enjoy the freedom of s pointsless system,

Well there's the rub isn't it? As soon as an 'Official" point system comes in all other ways to play get thrown out the window and that becomes the default. I have quite a few beefs with AoS myself but the focus on narrative play is not one of them. It's actually something I wish was pushed more with WHFB.

That all being said GW have proven to be grossly incompetent at creating a balanced point system. I'd prefer a system based on Wounds and Keyword restrictions (0-2 Monsters, 0-3 Hero keyword etc), but well see what they come up with.

coldgaming wrote:
Really cool that they're working with Heelanhammer and Facehammer on this. That's how I dreamed it would go down. I like the suggestion earlier in annual point books. Also, I would expect this document would make base to base measuring and whatnot.

And, more great podcast material!

+1(000) on this

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

 Cruentus wrote:

I still think you're missing the point. I'm in agreement with Kan here. In 40k they already had "apocalypse" in the game system as an 'optional' way to play. And no one did. So they rolled it into the main game to much "comping in tournament" and complaining. Then they release AoS without points, leaving it to the players to sort out their armies to play pick up games. Then tournaments try to "balance" it, and GW picks uthe mantle. But once they release an "official" points system for the game, no one, or very few people, will actually play the casual or original version. The "balanced" points system will be seen as "official" and thats all anyone will want to play.

In groups who have enjoyed playing the original AoS, their players will fragment as the original players will still play original, but some number will only play with points, thus fragmenting the system. Thats the point.

Even with external help, I'm going to be cautious around any claim of "balanced" as it pertains to AoS. It was nice to be able to play it with a handful of models if I wanted, now we'll see a growing "pool" as games get larger and larger to fit all the neat and balanced toys into army lists for tournaments. Again, cautiously optimistic, but I was already enjoying and will continue to enjoy the freedom of s pointsless system,

Well there's the rub isn't it? As soon as an 'Official" point system comes in all other ways to play get thrown out the window and that becomes the default. I have quite a few beefs with AoS myself but the focus on narrative play is not one of them. It's actually something I wish was pushed more with WHFB.

That all being said GW have proven to be grossly incompetent at creating a balanced point system. I'd prefer a system based on Wounds and Keyword restrictions (0-2 Monsters, 0-3 Hero keyword etc), but well see what they come up with.

This is completely different since this is a community effort and not a GW designer sitting alone at his desk pointing things out.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Doesn't matter. Customers will always find a way to complain about a product. It's the seller's "job" to listen to the feedback and attempt to solve it accordingly, and this is what GW is doing.

Trying to diminish the first truly inclusive act that GW has done in years by simply saying that customers will never be pleased is failing to see the point (or maybe ignoring it altogether) on a catastrophic level.

To an extent, maybe I'm being biased by my own experiences. The majority of people that I've played AoS with? They didn't give two craps about the lack of points.

The ones who would take the time to complain about the lack of points or who would talk about "boycotting" the system and playing 9th Age or 8th edition still?
They're the same people who during 8th would take the most broken friggin' stuff and acted as though they had won big tournaments. We all know those kinds of people, the "big fish" who would keep coming back to play in small ponds to keep being the big fish.
Those guys played AoS once or twice, and then stopped showing up when their "killer combo" lists got shut down by someone who just threw random models from their collection down.

No doubt about that, I agree with you fully on that very specific point regarding overly competitive players

But there are others who simply looked at AoS (or played it a couple of times) and let it go simply because it lacked the structure they desired. Not every player that wanted a balance structure is exactly TFG. A lot of them even openly admitted that they don't need a perfect balancing system, just something that is as good as they can get. This will help GW hook them back in.

And do note a lot of the players won't be coming back anyway for several other reasons that aren't the need of a balancing tool for the system - no Old World anymore, no RnF combat, and we've already mentioned the price.

And in the end everyone plays AoS as they want to play it. This is just another option.

I always heard AOS works well in a closed group of friends who come to agreements with each other over the game, but doesn't work well in the pick-up environment. By adding points, how exactly does this negatively impact a group that was already arbitrating things to start with?

If anything, it seems like adding points is just drawing in more customers- something AOS needs dearly if the rumors about its success (and the price cuts I see in product) are to be believed.

 Cruentus wrote:
I still think you're missing the point. I'm in agreement with Kan here. In 40k they already had "apocalypse" in the game system as an 'optional' way to play. And no one did. So they rolled it into the main game to much "comping in tournament" and complaining. Then they release AoS without points, leaving it to the players to sort out their armies to play pick up games. Then tournaments try to "balance" it, and GW picks uthe mantle. But once they release an "official" points system for the game, no one, or very few people, will actually play the casual or original version. The "balanced" points system will be seen as "official" and thats all anyone will want to play.

In groups who have enjoyed playing the original AoS, their players will fragment as the original players will still play original, but some number will only play with points, thus fragmenting the system. Thats the point.

Even with external help, I'm going to be cautious around any claim of "balanced" as it pertains to AoS. It was nice to be able to play it with a handful of models if I wanted, now we'll see a growing "pool" as games get larger and larger to fit all the neat and balanced toys into army lists for tournaments. Again, cautiously optimistic, but I was already enjoying and will continue to enjoy the freedom of s pointsless system,

It may indeed end up fracturing existing communities, but that's an acceptable sacrifice for GW.

The existing AoS playerbase just doesn't buy enough for AoS to be sufficiently profitable. WHFB didn't bring in enough money for GW and the AoS playerbase is even smaller. This is probably an attempt from GW at getting back some of the people who stopped playing when AoS hit.

Now, I think it'll ultimately not be successful, but these new rules will almost certainly be at least a net gain in players, and may keep AoS alive for a few years extra.

 Accolade wrote:
I always heard AOS works well in a closed group of friends who come to agreements with each other over the game, but doesn't work well in the pick-up environment. By adding points, how exactly does this negatively impact a group that was already arbitrating things to start with?

It doesn't.

 Accolade wrote:
I always heard AOS works well in a closed group of friends who come to agreements with each other over the game, but doesn't work well in the pick-up environment. By adding points, how exactly does this negatively impact a group that was already arbitrating things to start with?

If anything, it seems like adding points is just drawing in more customers- something AOS needs dearly if the rumors about its success (and the price cuts I see in product) are to be believed.

It doesn't, what it does impact is those groups where you have a few guys wanting to play narratively and a few who go along with it but would prefer to use an official points system if one existed... or people who play with new people often... Which I suspect is not that uncommon. It won't impact me (well it will, but positively, I will get more opponents!) but I can see how some people are miffed at this development. Changing the status quo WILL make many more players want to use points no matter what.

Mymearan actually puts it best. There are people who've been lamenting the lack of points but still playing; because hey it's still fun. But now those people can point to an 'official' points system and it can just become a cluster.

 Cruentus wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh please. Most of those people complaining online or in shops about the "lack of points" will find something else to complain about.
"There's no points!" has already become "Well, there's points--but the models are still too expensive!".
.

Granted but the price was always part of it too. I mean premium pricing for a brand new game completely different from the one it was set to replace was....problematic. If your trying o build a new game with a new player base you need to price it in such a way to get people in the door. Then once you have that you can start raising the price.

Doesn't matter. Customers will always find a way to complain about a product. It's the seller's "job" to listen to the feedback and attempt to solve it accordingly, and this is what GW is doing.

Trying to diminish the first truly inclusive act that GW has done in years by simply saying that customers will never be pleased is failing to see the point (or maybe ignoring it altogether) on a catastrophic level.

I think you're missing the point though.

Now AoS will not be exactly how Kanluwen wants it to be, and I wonder if that is not actually the most important consideration here?

I still think you're missing the point. I'm in agreement with Kan here. In 40k they already had "apocalypse" in the game system as an 'optional' way to play. And no one did. So they rolled it into the main game to much "comping in tournament" and complaining. Then they release AoS without points, leaving it to the players to sort out their armies to play pick up games. Then tournaments try to "balance" it, and GW picks uthe mantle. But once they release an "official" points system for the game, no one, or very few people, will actually play the casual or original version. The "balanced" points system will be seen as "official" and thats all anyone will want to play.

In groups who have enjoyed playing the original AoS, their players will fragment as the original players will still play original, but some number will only play with points, thus fragmenting the system. Thats the point.

Even with external help, I'm going to be cautious around any claim of "balanced" as it pertains to AoS. It was nice to be able to play it with a handful of models if I wanted, now we'll see a growing "pool" as games get larger and larger to fit all the neat and balanced toys into army lists for tournaments. Again, cautiously optimistic, but I was already enjoying and will continue to enjoy the freedom of s pointsless system,

I don't get this. The argument is basically that groups that didn't use points, and I guess instead had gentleman's agreements on what constituted "fair", will fracture because points will come out and a bunch of people will be like "I only want to use points instead"? So what is being lost, the ability to field whatever one chooses because there's no points? Could there still not be a gentleman's agreement/scenario that let the person who really wanted to play something that they didn't have the points for use it in some fashion (maybe another unit comes on the board later to compensate, or similar)? I don't understand why suddenly having official points is such a bad thing when before you were doing what amounted to arbitrarily making up points even if you weren't specifically saying it.

 Zywus wrote:

It may indeed end up fracturing existing communities, but that's an acceptable sacrifice for GW.

The existing AoS playerbase just doesn't buy enough for AoS to be sufficiently profitable. WHFB didn't bring in enough money for GW and the AoS playerbase is even smaller. This is probably an attempt from GW at getting back some of the people who stopped playing when AoS hit.

Speaking for myself, I'm not buying much AoS stuff because there has been nothing new yet for Aelves. I have a pretty hefty chunk of cash set aside just for the first new Aelf faction release.

I had 3k points of Wood Elves in 8th. I was set before the great Wood Elf cull, and I'll be set for that army for awhile yet.

 Mymearan wrote:
It won't impact me (well it will, but positively, I will get more opponents!).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

It may indeed end up fracturing existing communities, but that's an acceptable sacrifice for GW.

The existing AoS playerbase just doesn't buy enough for AoS to be sufficiently profitable. WHFB didn't bring in enough money for GW and the AoS playerbase is even smaller. This is probably an attempt from GW at getting back some of the people who stopped playing when AoS hit.

Speaking for myself, I'm not buying much AoS stuff because there has been nothing new yet for Aelves. I have a pretty hefty chunk of cash set aside just for the first new Aelf faction release.

I had 3k points of Wood Elves in 8th. I was set before the great Wood Elf cull, and I'll be set for that army for awhile yet.

I'm sure GW will be glad to hear that, but I'm afraid your future aelf-splurge will not do much to help the big picture. (and sitting on an old pile of Wood elfs certainly don't do anything for the AoS numbers)

If you (and others like you if such exist) had spent those money on sigmarines and fyreslayers instead, maybe GW wouldn't have felt it necessary to add a points system to regain some more of the lost WHFB players.

As it is now, they need to try something new, since the existing playerbase isn't buying enough.

I think the low sales were not mainly caused by the game itself, but by the unfortunate choice of releases at the launch of the game and the following 6 months... you had Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast... and none of those armies proved very popular. If they had started with Elves, Dwarves, Orks etc I suspect we would not be talking about what a huge flop the game is and how many boxes are sitting on shelves... because my suspicion is that most of those boxes are indeed Stormcast and Bloodbound.

 Mymearan wrote:
I think the low sales were not mainly caused by the game itself, but by the unfortunate choice of releases at the launch of the game and the following 6 months... you had Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast... and none of those armies proved very popular. If they had started with Elves, Dwarves, Orks etc I suspect we would not be talking about what a huge flop the game is and how many boxes are sitting on shelves... because my suspicion is that most of those boxes are indeed Stormcast and Bloodbound.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, but the less than stellar initial releases did anything but help.

 Zywus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

It may indeed end up fracturing existing communities, but that's an acceptable sacrifice for GW.

The existing AoS playerbase just doesn't buy enough for AoS to be sufficiently profitable. WHFB didn't bring in enough money for GW and the AoS playerbase is even smaller. This is probably an attempt from GW at getting back some of the people who stopped playing when AoS hit.

Speaking for myself, I'm not buying much AoS stuff because there has been nothing new yet for Aelves. I have a pretty hefty chunk of cash set aside just for the first new Aelf faction release.

I had 3k points of Wood Elves in 8th. I was set before the great Wood Elf cull, and I'll be set for that army for awhile yet.

I'm sure GW will be glad to hear that, but I'm afraid your future aelf-splurge will not do much to help the big picture. (and sitting on an old pile of Wood elfs certainly don't do anything for the AoS numbers)

Of course it doesn't do anything for the AoS numbers. I bought the Grand Alliance: Order book, and that was all I needed to run them. Didn't have to buy the book, but I did because hey. I like having a hard copy for the more recent stuff.

Because putting it rather bluntly? All the stuff that went to Last Chance to Buy for Wood Elves? I already had enough of the stuff I liked/wanted to begin with, to the point where I would never need more.

I have 16 Waywatchers under the new rules; 3 units of 5 and a Waystalker under the old.
I have Orion and a ton of Hunting Hounds under the old rules; they're nothing under the new.
Glade Lord on Great Stag? Got him--can't do anything with him under the new rules.
Glade Riders? Got 24 of them--and they're gone under the new rules.
Don't need more Glade Guard(got 100+), don't need more Eternal Guard/Wildwood Rangers or Sisters of the Thorn/Wild Riders.

I might at some point decide to pick up another Araloth to convert into a unique Nomad Prince, but that's about the only thing on my "Maybe Kinda?" list.

If you (and others like you if such exist) had spent those money on sigmarines and fyreslayers instead, maybe GW wouldn't have felt it necessary to add a points system to regain some more of the lost WHFB players.

I DID spend money on Fyreslayers. Magmadroth, the Battletome, and a Grimwrath Berzerker.

As it is now, they need to try something new, since the existing playerbase isn't buying enough.

Yeah no crap the playerbase "isn't buying enough", it's because out of everything that has come out? There's been only 4 "new" factions. Many people are waiting to see what the "new" version of their faction is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think the low sales were not mainly caused by the game itself, but by the unfortunate choice of releases at the launch of the game and the following 6 months... you had Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast... and none of those armies proved very popular. If they had started with Elves, Dwarves, Orks etc I suspect we would not be talking about what a huge flop the game is and how many boxes are sitting on shelves... because my suspicion is that most of those boxes are indeed Stormcast and Bloodbound.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, but the less than stellar initial releases did anything but help.

A big thing is that Stormcast prices were dumb.

$50 for 5 Stormcast Liberators...or $125 for an AoS starter which got you 10 Liberators, 3 Prosecutors, 3 Retributors, a lord on Dracoth and a Lord-Relictor(who still hasn't been released outside of that box btw).
Then you get into the $36-$40 characters on foot and it becomes more and more difficult for people to justify Stormcast.

Bloodbound were a bit easier to swallow, Bloodreavers with $58 for 20 and being able to mix them in with the starter guys easily, Heroes who were okay but not super necessary outside of formations, etc.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".

Oh heavens no!

I'm getting recollection here of a certain South Park episode involving Kanye West....

 Paradigm wrote:
Bravo GW, bravo!

You really want to congratulate them for doing something they should have done to begin with?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Bravo GW, bravo!

You really want to congratulate them for doing something they should have done to begin with?

Of course not. Wouldn't want to encourage them to keep listening to their customers, now would we?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".

Oh heavens no!

Yeah, heavens fething forbid I don't want the group of people I play with--which keeps getting more new players--to start fracturing because the outspoken few who bring the most ridiculous crap to "prove" that AoS is absolutely broken(one brings a Nurgle army with Gaunt Summoners and Tzeentch Daemons while the other brings nothing but Dark Elf Dragons and a Cauldron of Blood) can now start trying to push points down everyone's throats.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".

Oh heavens no!

Yeah, heavens fething forbid I don't want the group of people I play with--which keeps getting more new players--to start fracturing because the outspoken few who bring the most ridiculous crap to "prove" that AoS is absolutely broken(one brings a Nurgle army with Gaunt Summoners and Tzeentch Daemons while the other brings nothing but Dark Elf Dragons and a Cauldron of Blood) can now start trying to push points down everyone's throats.

Yup, keep on jumping through those mental hoops. This is all about you.

I would be happy to see something like this adapted to 40k- where th Codex just lists your units and their rules, with a separate online document listing all the points values that can be constantly updated. Most of the problems I've noticed have just been under/over costing units. The ability to update/change those whenever could be very beneficial to balancing armies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Bravo GW, bravo!

You really want to congratulate them for doing something they should have done to begin with?

Well, I disagree that it was necessary from the start, I've been keen on the game long before this announcement. But it is worth congratulating a move that improves the game for a lot of the people that weren't happy with it, does nothing to negatively affect those that were and doesn't detract from the game in any way. GW have done a good job here, responding to feedback is great, actively working with the community is better, doing it in a way that isn't going to piss off anyone who was already involved and enjoying AoS is even better.

I'm not afraid to admit mistakes, so I'll put my hand up and say I was wrong on this one.

BUT

Quite frankly, there are still too many unanswered questions that remain...unanswered.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Bravo GW, bravo!

You really want to congratulate them for doing something they should have done to begin with?

No. We're congratulating them for admitting they were wrong instead of burying their head in the sand like they normally would have done

 Kanluwen wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I think the low sales were not mainly caused by the game itself, but by the unfortunate choice of releases at the launch of the game and the following 6 months... you had Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast... and none of those armies proved very popular. If they had started with Elves, Dwarves, Orks etc I suspect we would not be talking about what a huge flop the game is and how many boxes are sitting on shelves... because my suspicion is that most of those boxes are indeed Stormcast and Bloodbound.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, but the less than stellar initial releases did anything but help.

A big thing is that Stormcast prices were dumb.

$50 for 5 Stormcast Liberators...or $125 for an AoS starter which got you 10 Liberators, 3 Prosecutors, 3 Retributors, a lord on Dracoth and a Lord-Relictor(who still hasn't been released outside of that box btw).
Then you get into the $36-$40 characters on foot and it becomes more and more difficult for people to justify Stormcast.

Bloodbound were a bit easier to swallow, Bloodreavers with $58 for 20 and being able to mix them in with the starter guys easily, Heroes who were okay but not super necessary outside of formations, etc.

Not only but also - but that is a (rather heavily debated already) topic that belongs in a different thread.

Let's see what else GW has up their sleeves for 2016.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".

Oh heavens no!

Yeah, heavens fething forbid I don't want the group of people I play with--which keeps getting more new players--to start fracturing because the outspoken few who bring the most ridiculous crap to "prove" that AoS is absolutely broken(one brings a Nurgle army with Gaunt Summoners and Tzeentch Daemons while the other brings nothing but Dark Elf Dragons and a Cauldron of Blood) can now start trying to push points down everyone's throats.

Yup, keep on jumping through those mental hoops. This is all about you.

You quote me, make a veiled little remark about "Kanye West on South Park" and then take the time to respond.

I've made no secret that my annoyance with this is solely based upon my personal experiences playing with my local group. So yeah, it does kinda feel like YOUR comments are "all about me".

 Ghaz wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Bravo GW, bravo!

You really want to congratulate them for doing something they should have done to begin with?

No. We're congratulating them for admitting they were wrong instead of burying their head in the sand like they normally would have done

Them admitted they were wrong would be bringing back The Old World.

Feel very ambivalent about this news. I really do not think it is possible to have your cake and eat it, too. I wish I could say - sure go ahead and point everything out, what could it hurt? But the truth is, it will just be one more thing that GW "doesn't do properly"/for posters to complain about. AoS will become another imbalanced game with models marketed by power creep.