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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
How many people actually playing AoS right now were complaining about lack of points? I can think of a few locally, but they were complaining because they're paranoid as hell about every little thing "potentially" being unbalanced.

How many players are playing(or rather buying) AOS though? If it's not multiplying FB's sales GW isn't happy.

If lack of points was driving more players away than kept...

And having points isn't away from anybody. Lack of points is. You don't need rules to play without points.

If you can't find people play pointless game afterwards that just shows people WANT points. GW is giving players what the players want. That's smart business move. You don't do business by putting out what you want. You put in what customers want.

After seeing the SCGT result winners and GW posting the army for purchase I feel even more discouraged to play this game. It feels like, take the most expensive models from a few different armies and see what happens. Hopefully with a points system games can be dialed into a more reasonable size. That Goblin army with 3 Thundertusks, 1 Stonehorn and 3 Arachnarok spiders... i just dont even know.

Well, there will actually be rules to play both ways (including Narrative, which sounds interesting and was a needed element).

No need to ostracize one playerbase or another, GW clearly wants to make a bigger tent / embrace more customer types. I for one am all for this, if you look at 40k you've got a whole range from casual to competitive and all can use the system. Really smart of GW to broaden the appeal of AoS

Of course my main personal goal is for them to have the support needed to keep making awesome models like the Maw Krusha, and more players has to help

 Sinful Hero wrote:
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.

This is BRILLIANT. It's exactly what they should do.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
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.

So, did this guy play any games of AoS during that four months, or just come to the conclusion it 'desperately needed points' based on...?

With regards to the points, does anyone have any idea how they stay "current"? If GW puts out new units, or units with new abilities, how long does it then take to rebalance the whole thing based on new stuff? I doubt you'd just be able to point the new stuff, because you'd end up with unintended consequences like now in 40k. So, how long of a lag are we talking before the "tournament organizers" update it? And then how long before the scrolls are updated, or wherever the points are stored. Seems like a lot of work.

Nailed it on the head there RiTides, with the coming summers "reinvention" of AOS it seems like GW are trying to make the game as accessible as possible to a wide range of players. So whether a dedicated member of a gaming club, a tourney player,a casual player or just two games a year with friends hopefully this will expand and develop the player base.

WayneTheGame -I was thinking the same thing - could be a good solution! Rather than being stuck with undercosted Wraithknights or the like for years...

Thraxas, cheers

tneva82 wrote:
You don't need rules to play without points.

You don't need rules to play AoS without a deck of cards.

What has a deck of cards got to do with anything? AoS is not designed with any mechanics that require a deck of cards. Now GW could add some kind of mechanic using a deck of cards but that will change the game.

Replace "deck of cards" with "points."

Now imagine there was a web forum where most posters assumed you need a deck of cards to play a miniatures game. That is what's going on here, except with points.

It makes sense to appeal to a larger customer base in the same way they needed to move on from WHFB's exclusive customer base. They're a business, and in the end need player adoption to keep the game going. For anyone who wants the game to continue to see strong support and new model releases for the long term, this is a very good thing!

You seem to be assuming that this announcement amounts to evidence for the proposition that the game was not doing well enough without a points system. Making the exact same kind of assumption, we can take the decision to ax WHFB as evidence for the proposition that a points system did not appeal to enough players to produce an adequate customer base for that game.

Now, I'm not saying that is unlikely. But the proper conclusion to draw would not be that this is good news for AoS - rather this just shows that GW does not really know how to get more customers interested in a Fantasy line.

All I know is that I hated AOS. This makes me re-evaluate it and seriously consider starting it up at the local GW store. For me, that's HUGE.

 Kanluwen wrote:

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".

Probably because the number of people who fit this category was so vanishingly small on the global marketplace scale to make them a non-viable customer base upon which to keep the line in existence. Their options were most likely, based upon their response, to attempt to come up with something to pander to the more competitive and/or balance oriented potential customer base or allow the game to go the way of the dodo.

Again, that's a bad assumption.

Also - it makes more sense to design a game that is not tailored to playing in stores than vice versa. And tailoring to "competitive players" implies a business model GW has never been prepared to undertake (emphasizing rules quality).

WayneTheGame wrote:
All I know is that I hated AOS. This makes me re-evaluate it and seriously consider starting it up at the local GW store. For me, that's HUGE.

Exactly! The point is actually not one or the other - this can appeal to both groups, which from a business standpoint makes complete sense. Why exclude part of your customer base if you don't have to?

I know not everyone is excited by it, but I think it's brilliant. Looking forward to seeing where they go with it!

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:
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.

This is BRILLIANT. It's exactly what they should do.

Nah. They should take it level further. Separate RULES into upgradable section as well leaving fluff for separate books.

All I know is that something was wrong, otherwise they wouldn't have made such sweeping changes. I can't say for certain what exactly was "wrong" enough that it made Games Workshop put in all this work.

 Cruentus wrote:
With regards to the points, does anyone have any idea how they stay "current"? If GW puts out new units, or units with new abilities, how long does it then take to rebalance the whole thing based on new stuff? I doubt you'd just be able to point the new stuff, because you'd end up with unintended consequences like now in 40k. So, how long of a lag are we talking before the "tournament organizers" update it? And then how long before the scrolls are updated, or wherever the points are stored. Seems like a lot of work.

Yes. But if there's no organized source doing that work then every player has to do basically same work...

But organized that work is spread and is overall lesser.

 Manchu wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
You don't need rules to play without points.

You don't need rules to play AoS without a deck of cards.

What has a deck of cards got to do with anything? AoS is not designed with any mechanics that require a deck of cards. Now GW could add some kind of mechanic using a deck of cards but that will change the game.

Replace "deck of cards" with "points."

Now imagine there was a web forum where most posters assumed you need a deck of cards to play a miniatures game. That is what's going on here, except with points.

I feel that maybe GW should have just gone with points at the start..

GW didn't design the game with points in mind, but they also didn't really design the game with much structure at all.
They expected people to wing it, and maybe In the end they haven't been seeing much of that at all.

If the game had a solid structure to build army's outside of points, maybe this wouldn't be happening today.

I am happy to see points return, since there really wasn't much other to go on.

 Manchu wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
You don't need rules to play without points.

You don't need rules to play AoS without a deck of cards.

What has a deck of cards got to do with anything? AoS is not designed with any mechanics that require a deck of cards. Now GW could add some kind of mechanic using a deck of cards but that will change the game.

Replace "deck of cards" with "points."

Now imagine there was a web forum where most posters assumed you need a deck of cards to play a miniatures game. That is what's going on here, except with points.

You can play without points just as fine wether there's points in rules or not. If you didn't want to play with points in FB but rather with narrative YOU COULD DO SO! Only thing stopping you was _you_.

You can't play with points if there isn't.

Therefore having points doesn't limit game from anybody. Not having limits. Ergo having points is superior as long as there's players who want points. That way there's more players who get what they want compared to no points which limits players. Unlike points.

This is a great move for GW. They simultaneously please all the gamers who don't know how to play games without being told how to, while also passing the buck of "official" points to the unpaid community.

They can continue to produce AoS unhindered, let someone else figure out the "official" points. No more complaints about lack of points, and any complaints about points values are directed to a non-GW entity.

Meanwhile you can continue to play AoS as intended, as narrative campaigns - which will be greatly expanded.

Win-win!

 Manchu wrote:
Again, that's a bad assumption.

Also - it makes more sense to design a game that is not tailored to playing in stores than vice versa. And tailoring to "competitive players" implies a business model GW has never been prepared to undertake (emphasizing rules quality).

The bad assumption is thinking that sales of GW's Fantasy line hasn't suffered since the release of AoS. Which is actually a pretty impressive feat considering how sales of that line had dropped off since the advent of 8th edition.

Just because it doesn't agree with your narrative doesn't make it a "bad assumption."

It's a reasonable assumption. A large company wouldn't make such a massive change in design paradigm, only to abandon it less than a year later, if that change in design paradigm hadn't hurt their bottom line. Making the change cost money, and big companies don't make such changes without having real, financial motivation to do so. If the change in paradigm had resulted in an increase in sales, there would have been no subsequent change announced today.

 RiTides wrote:
this can appeal to both groups

Spam this all you like, it is still wrong.

You can play with the X-Wing models without using any of the points costs for the pilots and upgrades. No one would say you are playing X-Wing, however.

AoS is not just "playing a game without using the points." AoS is not a ruleset missing its points system. Balancing options with points costs is not a design-neutral mechanic. It is a fundamental basis for any game. It is the kind of mechanic you choose to incorporate or not at the beginning of the design process because it will affect everything else; it will in large part determine what kind of game you are designing.

The AoS design does not incorporate a points mechanic. Absent considerable redesign, adding one now amounts to tacking points on. This is what third parties have already been doing. There is a good chance that this is all GW intends to do. This will not suddenly transform AoS into a competitive pick up game that, for example, WMH players will love. It's much more likely that the result will be a rickety contraption that satisfies no one. See also 40k.

Also note they're keeping this in a separate "competitive play" document - it's Not going on the warscrolls. If someone wants to use the Narrative document instead, they'll be able to and not have to worry with points. I think it's about as elegant a solution as they could have made to the current ruleset.

So again, well done to GW for listening and to SCGT for helping make the structure. Really appreciate the GW folks being more active and responsive lately, whether it's this, FAQs, more support for events, etc. Some really great signs

 Kanluwen wrote:

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".

Sorry but that seems like a pointless complaint to make with all due respect. The only repercussion this should have on you as someone who liked things 'as is' is that more people around you will have models for the system and maybe be willing to play an 'unbound' game with you. Otherwise, what difference does it make???

' I heard they changed the color in the seafood restaurant to purple. I hate purple.'
' I thought you were allergic to seafood and would never go in anyways?'
' I wouldn't, but I hate purple.'

I absolutely do not see the link you are making that as-is AoS people are being treated with disrespect by leaving them with no changes they don't want and then adding more players to the system if not the game-type. That's like saying I hate my older son because we had another kid. That's not what is happening here, at all. In fact, I love my first son so much, I wanted to make sure he had a best friend he could play with, and company, and to never be alone with a big loving family type thing is probably more what is going on.

Saldiven wrote:
It's a reasonable assumption. A large company wouldn't make such a massive change in design paradigm, only to abandon it less than a year later,

In that GW release, the first two things I see are how AoS is intended to be played - as you choose, and as narrative campaigns. In fact, there's more fun stuff coming for campaigns!
The last item in that release is that some non-GW people will be making rules that GW will sanction as "official" for points based tournaments etc.

Please show me the abandonment of the massive change in design paradigm

tneva82 wrote:
You can't play with points if there isn't.

Sure you can. Just design them. The only thing stopping you is _you_. Now if I take points out of a game designed to use them, I just have a broken game on my hands until I design some way to deal with the way I broke it. This happens all the time when people write scenarios for games designed for pick-up play.

I can guarantee sales are higher than pre-end times WFB for AoS. Pre-end time WFB got outsold in it's entirety by the SM Tactical Squad. It account for something like 5% of actual sales for the company.

AoS is doing better but probably not great. This could also just be the CEO going "What the hell? Why didn't we have an actual rule system in place for this game?" or "See, told you dingles that the increase wouldn't be enough to be sustainable without rules. now I've got the sales numbers to show it. FIX IT!"

I can easily see either of these from the current management from GW. You know, the one who has actually admitted they have a decent way to come to get back to where they want and has taken so many positive steps in a relatively short period of time. Just look at a lot of the tone even on Dakka lately. GW isn't instantly bemoaned and slammed by the masses on everything now. That's some pretty solid work in a year.

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
this can appeal to both groups

Spam this all you like, it is still wrong.

You can play with the X-Wing models without using any of the points costs for the pilots and upgrades. No one would say you are playing X-Wing, however.

AoS is not just "playing a game without using the points." AoS is not a ruleset missing its points system. Balancing options with points costs is not a design-neutral mechanic. It is a fundamental basis for any game. It is the kind of mechanic you choose to incorporate or not at the beginning of the design process because it will affect everything else; it will in large part determine what kind of game you are designing.

See also adding a points system to Chess. It is no longer Chess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
This could also just be the CEO going "What the hell? Why didn't we have an actual rule system in place for this game?" or "See, told you dingles that the increase wouldn't be enough to be sustainable without rules. now I've got the sales numbers to show it. FIX IT!"

What game are you speaking of? I played Age of Sigmar last Thursday - a Nurgle Blightking force led by Gotrut Spume against a Duardin Fyreslayer force, and there were rules aplenty, and it was quite fun.

 Manchu wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
You can't play with points if there isn't.

Sure you can. Just design them. The only thing stopping you is _you_. Now if I take points out of a game designed to use them, I just have a broken game on my hands until I design some way to deal with the way I broke it. This happens all the time when people write scenarios for games designed for pick-up play.

Yes but that means multiple groups doing same work _which will result in less quality_. Everybody doing it separately will result in multiple bad version.

Organized single entity combining data from multiple sources will result in better result.

Only reason to hate including points is wishing game to be INFERIOR in quality. Having points doesn't limit anybody from playing no points/narrative. But not having points will mean group specific ones will never be as good as they could be. There simply isn't enough data generated by small group to make good enough job.

Now lots of groups combined providing data...That will result in quality.

Meanwhile ignoring points and playing no point narrative game doesn't have that issue.

Points from get-go is THE most "cover all players" solution. No points just limits players away. That's very bad commercially as GW seems to have found out. No points will never have as high potential sale target as point one has. X+Y is always bigger than just X.

tneva82 wrote:
Yes but that means multiple groups doing same work _which will result in less quality_.

First, this is not necessarily true.

Second, there does not need to be an "official" points system in order for players to organize to design one (which by the way has already happened). The best possible designers for any points system are tournament organizers and tournament players. As per this announcement, even GW knows that.

tneva82 wrote:
Only reason to hate including points is wishing game to be INFERIOR in quality.

Absolute, 100%, unqualified nonsense. Miniatures games do not require points in order to work/be fun/be good.

tneva82 wrote:
Having points doesn't limit anybody from playing no points/narrative.

The points mechanic is inherently restrictive. The basic point of this mechanic is to restrict.