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.

 Manchu wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
As long as AOS rules are free, complaints about their quality will have significantly less merit.

Caveat Mendicus? Hasn't the free stuff been slowly but surely replaced with not-free stuff?

No, it's still the same as it was on launch. Warscrolls are free, formations and scenarios come in the books or as micro-transactions in the app.

So GW was too lazy to develop a balanced game, skiped the points stuff (the cwhole alpha and beta test) and let players do the work for free.

Now they came, take the finished product and let the players celebrate them actually doing nothing.

Where do you find the new Stormcast warscrolls?

 kodos wrote:
So GW was too lazy to develop a balanced game, skiped the points stuff (the cwhole alpha and beta test) and let players do the work for free.

Now they came, take the finished product and let the players celebrate them actually doing nothing.

Hey, as long as they're not charging for it, I'm all good with it.

Plus this is a huge improvement over their typical MO.

 Manchu wrote:
Again: games are designed with mechanics. A game designed to incorporate balance-through-points is different from a game NOT designed to do that. If some third party tacks points on after the fact (the current situation), that's one thing. That is a world apart from starting with a design "ecosystem" defined by points.

Ah, I see. A game with an inherent balance built into it - or designed in a way that didn't use points to balance the matches - that then tacks on a points system would (theoretically) suffer from it. Fair enough. But I disagree that AoS was written with any sort of balance to begin with, so I cannot see this as a downside, especially for those (like Kan) who don't want to use the points system.

 Accolade wrote:
I think cost has an impact on the vitriol related to rules issues. You look at a rules issue with AOS and can say "well, at least I didn't pay for this gak." With 40k, you have to ask yourself "why the hell did I pay for this gak?"

Fair enough, I see where you're coming from.

 Manchu wrote:
Where do you find the new Stormcast warscrolls?

I'm sure there are other places, but the one I'm aware of is directly on the website:

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Stormcast-Eternals-Lord-Castellant-on-Dracoth

"Rules" is right next to "Delivery" and "Returns"

 Manchu wrote:
Where do you find the new Stormcast warscrolls?

Which ones are you having a hard time finding?

 Manchu wrote:
Where do you find the new Stormcast warscrolls?

On their respective store page. Or better yet in the app. Every time a new model is released the app is updated with its rules.

As mentioned, I think the biggest takeaway here is how GW handled the situation - they saw the frustration/disappointment toward AoS and it's lack of balance, so they moved to fix it. Relying on outside experts to do so is icing on the cake. Sure, there are other problems, but at least their decision-makers are paying attention.

There are two main ways to do points in war games.

One way is to calculate a spreadsheet that gives the value of each type of weapon and armour, allowing players to work out any kind of unit they like and be reasonably sure it is fair within the game rules. This kind of system is used in various space navy games, which have the advantage that players can invent new units or adapt any existing SF universe to the rules. You can also use it to work out units, and not release the actual spreadsheet to players.

Another system is the opposite of the first one. You take all the values of the in-game effects of weapons and armour, and calculate backwards to a table of points. The disadvantage is that everything won't necessarily fit neatly, so you can end up with units worth 10.5 points. The second problem of this system is that it's harder to accomodate special rules that weren't invented with points balance in mind. This is what is liable to trip up the AoS points system, especially if GW continue to invent new units without trynig to fit them into the existing balance.

So, maybe it will be a failure for GW. One can only hope if that is what happens that the management at GW eventually will come to understand their additional mistakes and learn from them.

Clanan wrote:
As mentioned, I think the biggest takeaway here is how GW handled the situation - they saw the frustration/disappointment toward AoS and it's lack of balance, so they moved to fix it.

The issue is that a lot of the "frustration/disappointment towards AoS and its lack of balance" were coming from people who either had no intention of playing the game or who refused to even try playing the game.

That sets a crummy precedent in the eyes of people who actually were playing the game and having an enjoyable time; i.e. "You're not as important to us as someone who will be buying the premade Tournament Packs we release based upon the top three players at X event".

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
A game can be friendly to both gaming "styles" and being so will only make it better overall.

One GW game shows this is possible - LotR/Hobbit/Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game. The huge caveat is the IP. The players tend to be Tolkien fans and therefore pretty concerned that their armies are fluffy. The same will not apply to AoS any more than it currently does to 40k. There is also a more theoretical reason that AoS cannot and should not be balanced in the same way as SBG:

 Manchu wrote:
For those looking for a more historical/technological approach to list writing in a "fantasy" game, I'd really recommend Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit Strategy Battle Game (soon to be rebranded as Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game). Every unit and every option is very rationally laid out. This of course is partly a result of the races all (or mostly) sharing a phenotype, as it were, as well as roughly the same kind of equipment. It's also a result of Tolkien's work being an explicitly Christian fantasy and therefore assuming an ordered, historical approach.

Contrast this to Warhammer Fantasy - either Old World or AoS - in which Chaos rather than Cosmos is the basis of the setting. In Warhammer Fantasy, the Psychic is preeminent over the Material. Technology is meaningless in the face of true magic, which ignores any and every natural law upon which science is even possible. In this kind of world, it matters less what something is than what it symbolizes - as in a dream. (The appearance of) heavy armor in AoS, for example, stands for toughness generally rather than being a literal constant X applied universally, as in SBG.

Interesting.

I would actually very interested in reading a more in-depth look at this.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The issue is that a lot of the "frustration/disappointment towards AoS and its lack of balance" were coming from people who either had no intention of playing the game or who refused to even try playing the game.

So not only do you not like this (optional) new system, you also claim to speak on behalf of the intent of everyone you disagree with?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The issue is that a lot of the "frustration/disappointment towards AoS and its lack of balance" were coming from people who either had no intention of playing the game or who refused to even try playing the game.

So not only do you not like this (optional) new system, you also claim to speak on behalf of the intent of everyone you disagree with?

Oh I'm sorry, do I need to preface every single post with "In my experience"?

 Kanluwen wrote:
IN MY EXPERIENCE, , the issue is that a lot of the "frustration/disappointment towards AoS and its lack of balance" were coming from people who either had no intention of playing the game or who refused to even try playing the game.

Happy now? Or do you have some prices to whine about?

 Accolade wrote:

 kodos wrote:
So GW was too lazy to develop a balanced game, skiped the points stuff (the cwhole alpha and beta test) and let players do the work for free.

Now they came, take the finished product and let the players celebrate them actually doing nothing.

Hey, as long as they're not charging for it, I'm all good with it.

Plus this is a huge improvement over their typical MO.

I would not be suprised to see all the new books reprinted with points whilke the free stuff would miss them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But I disagree that AoS was written with any sort of balance to begin with, so I cannot see this as a downside, especially for those (like Kan) who don't want to use the points system.

I think you are correct that AoS has been designed pretty much without considering "balance" in the sense most of us are familiar with from playing 40k, WHFB, WMH, or other games designed for pick-up play. But beyond the pick-up play perspective, the lack of points is a feature rather than a flaw. The idea is, the actual people playing a given game will do the "balancing" - defined as, using whatever they think will result in a fun game. For lots of people, fairness is a condition of fun - but it is not the only condition. The brilliant idea of AoS (whether intentional or otherwise) is that the parties best situated to judge what will be fun in a given instance of play are the people playing that particular instance. When you design units to be "balanced" for pick-up gaming (e.g., with points costs) first and foremost, you are stepping in as a designer and telling players, "this is the best way to have fun." And designing rules from that perspective will result in a completely different game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I would actually very interested in reading a more in-depth look at this.

Once you start looking at AoS accepting that the basis of the setting is Chaos, the rules start to make a lot more sense: it seems to me that a game of AoS is meant to simulate a duel between lucid dreamers.

 kodos wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 kodos wrote:
So GW was too lazy to develop a balanced game, skiped the points stuff (the cwhole alpha and beta test) and let players do the work for free.

Now they came, take the finished product and let the players celebrate them actually doing nothing.

Hey, as long as they're not charging for it, I'm all good with it.

Plus this is a huge improvement over their typical MO.

I would not be suprised to see all the new books reprinted with points whilke the free stuff would miss them.

Well, if THIS happens, I'll be right back on the picket lines

Gotta send GW a clear message about their business decisions, good or bad.

The rancor really isn't needed, guys - GW listened, they're making a way to play with points that is separate from the warscrolls themselves. Should be great for people who want to play all styles. Just great to see GW respond to the feedback!

Those who don't want to use the points will have the narrative and other organized play methods released simultaneously. Win-win!

This will greatly broaden the playerbase, which is great for everybody who wants to see more AoS releases . I ordered the Maw Krusha and would love to see more like that!

Kan, stop it. You're embarrassing yourself now.

 Manchu wrote:
I think you are correct that AoS has been designed pretty much without considering "balance" in the sense most of us are familiar with from playing 40k, WHFB, WMH, or other games designed for pick-up play. But beyond the pick-up play perspective, the lack of points is a feature rather than a flaw. The idea is, the actual people playing a given game will do the "balancing" - defined as, using whatever they think will result in a fun game. For lots of people, fairness is a condition of fun - but it is not the only condition. The brilliant idea of AoS (whether intentional or otherwise) is that the parties best situated to judge what will be fun in a given instance of play are the people playing that particular instance. When you design units to be "balanced" for pick-up gaming (e.g., with points costs) first and foremost, you are stepping in as a designer and telling players, "this is the best way to have fun." And designing rules from that perspective will result in a completely different game.

Whilst the rest of what you're saying makes sense, I can't agree with the "this is the best way to have fun" thing, because then we're entering the area of "Why even have rules? That's just someone telling someone else how to play the game!!!".

Take RPGs as an example. They have rules - often quite extensive rules - yet part of what makes RPG's work is that you can ignore all of it. You can house rule everything, change anything, and play the game in ways completely unintended by the designers (eg. people using the Rogue Trader rules to play Ork-based campaigns). But the games still have rules, and those rules are important. They're what grounds the game, and what gives it its foundations. Everything stems from those rules.

I don't see them as dictating the 'best' way to have fun, I see them as giving a framework from which to play those games. In this instance, AoS appears to be introducing three frame-works, one which is no frame-work (the current one), one which drives games based around narrative and story (which, presumably, would lead specifically to unbalanced/asymmetrical styles of play), and a structured one that puts everyone on a level playing field as everyone starts with the same basis of army construction (X points, with everything having points to balance it within that system).

Now, of course, that latter one won't ever actually be balanced - perfect balance is impossible + this is GW we're talking about - but I just cannot see this harming the game at all.

Magic does obey rules, they just aren't the ones that modern science has identified as the actual basis of the world. That's why there isn't any real magic in the world,a nd why when something happens that we can't explain from knowledge, we often ascribe to supernatural powers.

For example, two important rules in academic theories of sympathetic magic are similarity, or correspondence, and contagion. These were developed as a way of explaining how primitive' man's genuine belief in magic might have developed.
In this theory the wall paintings of caveman hunts don't depict real hunts, they depict an imaginary hunt that the painter hopes will become true because he has painted the scene showing his success. By magic of similarity, the depicted prey will be struck by the hunter.

However this is perhaps going off at too much of a tangent.

can someone let me know when this thread returns to either news or rumors?
id be happy with either.

Some RPG rulesets are merely guidelines for the referee to use to help her make her own calls during play. Other rulesets, especially ones with complicated rules for movement and relative position, are meant to be played as written. IME miniatures wargames tend to be closer to the latter end of the spectrum as a whole - and that includes AoS, even without points costs. What we are discussing here is a separate issue - how to make a match-up fair. AoS reminds us that fun and fair are not necessarily the same thing (something historicals miniatures gamers never forgot). That does not mean AoS cannot be fair. But fun in a wider sense is a higher priority than strict (albeit purely theoretical) fairness, as in pick-up gaming.

@usernamesareannoying: Probably would have been easier not posting as to save further derailment (and look at me go doing the same thing!)

I think AOS will be better off with this 3-tiered system. 40k Apocalypse was not super well-received because it played at a scale that people were not interested in for a 28mm skirmish game. The Narrative and Open gaming for AOS should be more engaging because they are about different ways to the play the game, as opposed to (sloppily) scaling it up.

Good for GW, this is a great move for them both for AoS and as a brand/customer relations. They listened, and moved quickly.

It seems a lot of current AoS players are nonchalant about it, but I remember the complaints of the hordes of players giving the entire system a pass because of the no points model. Gw has taken nothing away from current players, but opened up the possibility of attracting those who skipped into the kind of game they were looking for. That's a win-win in my book. Good job.

 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.

Just asking, sincerely, but do you not realize your group may be atypical, and that many of us our excited for a reason?

I have visited, or am a regular at maybe ten game shops in the NY/NJ/CT tri-state area, and I can tell you that not one even plays AoS in its current incarnation. Some of those stores even had semi-loyal WHFB groups who moved on to 9th Age, and Kings of War, but no one wanted to play AoS.

Now, I have always tried to stay open-minded, and am thrilled that this one change may be enough to get the game a shot in the arm.

I don't know if my experiences, or yours better reflect the community on the whole, as we're both just speaking to our perspectives, but to me it sounds like you refuse to believe that maybe your fun, fluffy, growing AoS community is in the minority versus what many others see happening in their towns.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Magic does obey rules, they just aren't the ones that modern science has identified as the actual basis of the world.

I think you are approaching this from the perspective of understanding magic as a pre-modern "groping in the dark" for science. But we are concerned here with the magic of fantasy rather than the "magic" of history. While it is true that fantasy magic does conform to some "rules" (for example, the rule of causality, to the extent that a sorcerer is able to reproduce a given spell), these "rules" are really a matter of narrative rather than being substantive natural laws. The substance of fantasy magic is rather defiance of natural law; the idea that what is normally (that is, as a matter of nature) impossible can somehow be possible. AoS takes this a lightyear farther: the natural world itself was blown up. Therefore, whatever remains of that regime of law and order is now adrift on an ocean of Chaos. Magic rather than science, Chaos rather than Cosmos, is the principal of this setting. I think rationalized systems of balancing forces is more suitable to games set in historical or at least low-magic settings, settings where "magic" is really just a matter of some higher order of nature (as in Tolkien), while AoS benefits from a different approach.

 kodos wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 kodos wrote:
So GW was too lazy to develop a balanced game, skiped the points stuff (the cwhole alpha and beta test) and let players do the work for free.

Now they came, take the finished product and let the players celebrate them actually doing nothing.

Hey, as long as they're not charging for it, I'm all good with it.

Plus this is a huge improvement over their typical MO.

I would not be suprised to see all the new books reprinted with points whilke the free stuff would miss them.

There's no way this will happen. It wouldn't make sense for anyone, even GW.

We had one guy at our local store excited about AoS and he wanted to play with no points. Didn't see him for about 4 months (his schedule and mine not meeting up), ran into him yesterday, and asked if he'd been able to get games in. He said he'd be happy to play, but stated the game desperately needs a point system. So somebody who didn't want points...now wants points. Sounds like ill actually be able to get AoS games in with points! I like the mechanics. I think combat is better than old Warhammer, as you really have to decide what you can chance ponying up as a loss of your opponent can crush a unit of yours based on the new combat turn order. I look forward to playing with points, and I think people in my store will start looking at it again. With points. Just wanna hammer that home for the people who are pissed that points are coming and bringing some of us back in.

 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's more about just being on the same page in what you're looking for out of the game. If your group is used to using a comp pack or common house rule like measure from bases its pretty simple. Don't believe the nonsense that any game involves a negotiation as if you're buying a car. Admit it's not to say any two strangers meeting will instantly approach the game the same way but it's really not hard and you probably can tell right away If this opponent is going to give you an enjoyable experience worthy the time.

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Good for GW, this is a great move for them both for AoS and as a brand/customer relations. They listened, and moved quickly.

It seems a lot of current AoS players are nonchalant about it, but I remember the complaints of the hordes of players giving the entire system a pass because of the no points model. Gw has taken nothing away from current players, but opened up the possibility of attracting those who skipped into the kind of game they were looking for. That's a win-win in my book. Good job.

Fantastic post Tom, and totally agreed!

It makes sense to appeal to as many customers as possible - Warmachine / Hordes is doing this with their rules tweaks, too.

It's awesome to have multiple ways to play AoS - people can keep playing without points, but now you have more customers and can make the system more sustainable. It's definitely a good move for the health/adoption of the game!