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 - I understand your view - I just don't share it. I play Warmahordes (casually), 40K and played a heck of a lot of WHFB. I also purchased things from the last two AoS releases just because I liked the models.

So, I know you think that GW can only appeal to one group or the other (those who like points or don't) with this game... but I politely agree to disagree on that.

I find myself in between camps in a lot of games, and while I don't care for 40K, it certainly does appeal to a broad market. If GW can achieve anything remotely close to that with AoS, I'm sure they'd be all for it. For myself, AoS as it was didn't interest me (although the models did) and now it might. I can't speak for you or for others - only for myself, and for myself I think this was a fantastic move on GW's part - and I'm excited by it.

Again I totally get that you aren't... but I'd appreciate agreeing to disagree as there are plenty of us interested who would like to discuss the ramifications of this, who don't share your view that it's a bad move on GW's part.

 judgedoug wrote:

 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.

Except chess has a specific number and type of pieces. It is hardly the same thing.
If AoS specified the number of models you could have and what type of models they are, you'd have a point.
But it doesn't, does it?

 Manchu wrote:

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.

I agree with you on this point.

Here's a sample scenario I think will probably occur.

Player A: Let's play Free Play. I'm taking Unit X.
Player B: But Unit X costs 750 points.
Player A: But we're not playing with points. It doesn't matter.
Player B: But obviously Unit X is an expensive, good unit, and my army cannot compete. I don't want to play anymore.

 RiTides wrote:
I find myself in between camps in a lot of games, and while I don't care for 40K, it certainly does appeal to a broad market. If GW can achieve anything remotely close to that with AoS, I'm sure they'd be all for it. For myself, AoS as it was didn't interest me (although the models did) and now it might. I can't speak for you or for others - only for myself, and for myself I think this was a fantastic move on GW's part - and I'm excited by it.

So you went from a total disinterest in the game, to a healthy interest in the game, because GW will pluck someone's comp system and slap the word "official" on it?

Doug - I know it's not true for all groups, but with my local group saying "Let's start a new game system and build armies based on this tourney's comp system" doesn't get much response. We actually had folks pushing back on all the "new shiney" waves we went through as a gaming group, and many want to see pretty solid adoption before they're willing to start.

So for my group, yeah, having GW make an "official" way to play with points makes all the difference in whether local folks might adopt it. Again, I know that's not true everywhere... but it is here, and means I might actually be able to get a game in!

I'm still more likely to go heavy on Kings of War, and will hopefully be making it down your way for that for some events but it's awesome to have options.

so, Yes.

That's all my question was.

Like I said earlier, it's brilliant. GW can keep designing Age of Sigmar as they want and hoist all the worries about assigning "points" and attempting to add "balance" (as we all know, points do not equal balance) to a non-GW entity. Complains about lack of "balance" and bad "points" are directed to this non GW entity and GW eliminates a huge percentage of it's customer base's complaints.

I only hope this is what is in store for 40k 8th edition: GW releases models and rules, and some other entity that actually _wants_ to bother with "points" and also "balance" can take it on.

Especially since GW hasn't internally cared about trying to "balance" anything in it's systems since the Demons army book for Warhammer 7th edition.

What makes me optimistic about this news is the SCGT (and Ben Curry I suppose) guys' involvement. From their podcasts, I know that they like the spirit of AoS and are very much on board with the things that make AoS great. They've also consistently said what's missing is that framework for pickup and tournament games. SCGT is a great system, and really very close to the base rules. I believe they will be able to retain the spirit of AoS while making the game conducive to pickup gamers, which is the best of both worlds.

I embraced the pointsless new world, but there's absolutely no arguing it's been a barrier to people adopting the game. That GW is picking up the people who turned their game into one conducive to those gamers is great news.

I love Warhammer, I want it to survive, I want GW to thrive and grow, because it just means more Warhammer content for me, models, books, armies, boxes, lore progression, etc.

I also want more people playing the game, talking about it, playing with me, posting their models, making videos, podcasts, etc.

The narrative play interests me, and I would love a full campaign system to be developed. It sounds like they're even going to make edits to the base rules for open play.

In all, you can look at the first year of AoS like a beta test that was never called a beta test. The community gave its feedback, developed its own systems, and GW decided where to go. I think this is nothing but a good thing. There will, of course, always be complaints, and I am sure the SCGT guys are bracing for the coming storm of any imbalance that might be in the new system.

I find all of the uproar somewhat amusing myself. At my flgs we have been playing AoS with points and tight balance for six months now. Really its not that players want points; they want reasonably balanced matchups and points is a common way to do that. The amount of comp systems and at the very least wounds-count going on shows that the basic AoS ruleset was not sufficient to provide the balance people were looking for. Also note the most popular comps all use points (or points with a different name). Further, if everything with AoS was working fine then GW would not change anything so the rational assumption is indeed that AoS has not been performing well enough in their eyes.

And please please please for the love of my sanity do not claim AoS isn't a 'broken' ruleset in the gaming sense. Straight from the RAW it relies on players to create reasonable matchups, and I won't even go into the dozens of instant-win combos that exist.

End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares? There is no wrong fun here. I DO play with points and this release is unlikely to affect me at all because I'll still use the same comp because it will offer the better balance I am looking for.

 judgedoug wrote:
so, Yes.

That's all my question was.

Like I said earlier, it's brilliant. GW can keep designing Age of Sigmar as they want and hoist all the worries about assigning "points" and attempting to add "balance" (as we all know, points do not equal balance) to a non-GW entity. Complains about lack of "balance" and bad "points" are directed to this non GW entity and GW eliminates a huge percentage of it's customer base's complaints.

I only hope this is what is in store for 40k 8th edition: GW releases models and rules, and some other entity that actually _wants_ to bother with "points" and also "balance" can take it on.

Especially since GW hasn't internally cared about trying to "balance" anything in it's systems since the Demons army book for Warhammer 7th edition.

Doug - I'd just like to say that I agree with every word in this post

Kicking the balancing of 40K over to another entity would be one of the best things for the game, and this will likely result in a more balanced competitive "fantasy" ruleset than we've had in several editions. So, yeah... agreed on all counts!

And yes, as odd as I guess it might sound that was indeed the answer to your question for myself / my gaming group, and I'm guessing might be for quite a few other groups, too.

ziggurattt wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

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.

I agree with you on this point.

Here's a sample scenario I think will probably occur.

Player A: Let's play Free Play. I'm taking Unit X.
Player B: But Unit X costs 750 points.
Player A: But we're not playing with points. It doesn't matter.
Player B: But obviously Unit X is an expensive, good unit, and my army cannot compete. I don't want to play anymore.

This is pretty much exactly how it will go.

Chopxsticks wrote:
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.

Worth noting that this is probably why GW wants to base things of SCGT; it favors expensive models. This is also why I won't be switching over to whatever points values they launch, because I see the writing on the wall for how balanced they will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

ziggurattt wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

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.

I agree with you on this point.

Here's a sample scenario I think will probably occur.

Player A: Let's play Free Play. I'm taking Unit X.
Player B: But Unit X costs 750 points.
Player A: But we're not playing with points. It doesn't matter.
Player B: But obviously Unit X is an expensive, good unit, and my army cannot compete. I don't want to play anymore.

This is pretty much exactly how it will go.

Instead of adding the extra step where they don't have points to start, player B gets slaughtered, and then doesn't play.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 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.

And yet you'd still be here harping about how they didn't bring it back exactly right.

Coming from King Contrarian the 1st himself that's quite a comment

 Manchu wrote:

 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..

Sorry but that argument doesn't hold water. You're not telling players how to have fun, you're providing a framework for players who find fun in structure. That's particularly true of GW games, which have always had a fairly strong "if you don't like this or that rule, just ignore it/roll a dice" attitude going on. Designers are supposed to design the experience, that's literally their job.

Which is really the key point - players who dislike structure are free to ignore any structure the designer provides, but it's much harder to create structure out of nothing especially on a game-to-game basis - beginning with structure allows both types of player to have fun, designing an inherently unstructured system can only ever provide fun for people who like unstructured systems.

 Manchu wrote:
But fun in a wider sense is a higher priority than strict (albeit purely theoretical) fairness, as in pick-up gaming.

Hold on, I thought we weren't supposed to be dictating what's fun? If someone finds fairness to be the primary determinant of whether they have fun, why is their fun somehow less pure, less worthy?

 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.

And here the biscuit is taken. That you can sit there with a straight face and suggest that ignoring points and writing a wee scenario is even remotely equivalent to the amount of effort that is required to design, test, and implement a game-wide points system is farcical.


Anyway, as for the news itself - meh. I'm happy for the non-contrarian, non-buzzkilly AoS fans, I suppose. It just saddens me to think that if GW had pulled their thumb out of their arse and implemented all this new stuff(discount bundle boxes, re-engaging with the internet, trying to fix the rules in partnership with the community etc) a few years ago, they probably never would have had to can proper Warhammer Fantasy in the first place.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
.

End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.

That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".

coldgaming wrote:
What makes me optimistic about this news is the SCGT (and Ben Curry I suppose) guys' involvement. From their podcasts, I know that they like the spirit of AoS and are very much on board with the things that make AoS great. They've also consistently said what's missing is that framework for pickup and tournament games. SCGT is a great system, and really very close to the base rules. I believe they will be able to retain the spirit of AoS while making the game conducive to pickup gamers, which is the best of both worlds.

I embraced the pointsless new world, but there's absolutely no arguing it's been a barrier to people adopting the game. That GW is picking up the people who turned their game into one conducive to those gamers is great news.

I love Warhammer, I want it to survive, I want GW to thrive and grow, because it just means more Warhammer content for me, models, books, armies, boxes, lore progression, etc.

I also want more people playing the game, talking about it, playing with me, posting their models, making videos, podcasts, etc.

The narrative play interests me, and I would love a full campaign system to be developed. It sounds like they're even going to make edits to the base rules for open play.

In all, you can look at the first year of AoS like a beta test that was never called a beta test. The community gave its feedback, developed its own systems, and GW decided where to go. I think this is nothing but a good thing. There will, of course, always be complaints, and I am sure the SCGT guys are bracing for the coming storm of any imbalance that might be in the new system.

Also just wanted to say this is a great post. I like seeing folks' take on it who actually adopted AoS and have "skin in the game" as it were... and it's been pretty encouraging so far!

I hope they come up with a good points system. I can't imagine playing without points.

RiTides - I take no issue with your prediction that GW will technically broaden its player base by recognizing a tacked-on points system. It's true that pinning a badge of officialdom on the existing tournie scene may attract a few more players. Whether that is meaningful to GW's bottom line is, of course, another matter. My objection instead relates to the assumption that using a tacked-on points system will fool people who want a real pick-up game into liking AoS.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
.

End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.

That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".

You mean like players had been doing for decades before AoS showed up? I guess people who want to play without points will just have to take the time to discuss things with their opponent and hash out how they want to play - fans of the structure-free method have been been telling everyone it's dead easy, afterall.

@Yodhrin, now there will be balanced play have you considered using the AoS rules for some skirmish games set in the Old World? (If you wanted to go for a slightly bigger scale than Mordheim offers). I hope you give it a try. :-)

And to chime in with the news. I am overjoyed.

 RiTides wrote:
Doug - I know it's not true for all groups, but with my local group saying "Let's start a new game system and build armies based on this tourney's comp system" doesn't get much response. We actually had folks pushing back on all the "new shiney" waves we went through as a gaming group, and many want to see pretty solid adoption before they're willing to start.

So for my group, yeah, having GW make an "official" way to play with points makes all the difference in whether local folks might adopt it. Again, I know that's not true everywhere... but it is here, and means I might actually be able to get a game in!

I'm still more likely to go heavy on Kings of War, and will hopefully be making it down your way for that for some events but it's awesome to have options.

I've got to say, I am in the exact same camp. I love miniatures war-gaming, PERIOD and can be enthused about trying and giving a fair shake to anything, but our local stores are filled with some capricious as hell players. If a game doesn't check oddly specific boxes, it won't even find a small group. And God help me, i've seen GREAT, universally lauded games, fail to take hold because of said capriciousness.

My local players may now actually give AoS a look, and for that, at the very least, I am grateful, and increasingly excited.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
.

End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.

That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".

It's honestly even hard with historicals that then have points values. One plays Hail Caesar without points values just fine; but once you get a copy of the "army lists" with "points", it becomes your mental framework - despite the fact that Hail Caesar is a system not designed for points values, just like Age of Sigmar, so the points values are - as admitted - totally tacked on.

However, GW exists to make money, and I agree with their absolutely correct best amazing decision to have a non-GW entity do the work for them. Then they'll attract a new playerbase who absolutely cannot play without a number being assigned to models - who will then buy said models, thus sending them lots and lots of dollars, but the torrent of complains about "balance" are directed to another non-GW entity. Let the great wallet-milking begin.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
.

End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.

That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".

It sounds like you are unhappy because you feel players prefer having a points structure. So then, you admit that AoS has a better majority appeal with points?

You can either say AoS is fine without points and not be afraid of the fallout from this, or accept that most people prefer points and thus have a legitimate concern for how you play. You can't have both.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Instead of adding the extra step where they don't have points to start, player B gets slaughtered, and then doesn't play.

It's not an extra step - it's a different game.

Let's go back to the chess example: "Instead of taking a 9-point Queen, I'll just take nine more 1-point pawns." This is just by way of showing the problem with points-based balancing. Chess has an extremely fine-tuned system of points values for pieces but that point value of each pieces is strongly based on a static set up. Nine more pawns will always be worth more than the sum of their points. The same thing is true in miniatures games. Designers mitigate this by incorporating force organization systems. So right there you can see how using points is a basic mechanic that implies/evokes other derivative ones because the primary goal of the design was balance.

Now let's leave the world of games design upon a points cost mechanic. Having a balanced game was never the primary intention. That in turn qualifies the player base. The players do not have the same expectations as they would if they were playing a points-based pick-up game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
My local players may now actually give AoS a look, and for that, at the very least, I am grateful, and increasingly excited.

Prepare yourself for disappointment. They will take a look at AoS "+ points" and if they are smart they will figure out that it's still AoS, after all. Now, this won't be an issue if the real problem is simply that they are so narrow-minded that they have to be tricked into trying anything even slightly outside of their comfort zone.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Doug - I know it's not true for all groups, but with my local group saying "Let's start a new game system and build armies based on this tourney's comp system" doesn't get much response. We actually had folks pushing back on all the "new shiney" waves we went through as a gaming group, and many want to see pretty solid adoption before they're willing to start.

So for my group, yeah, having GW make an "official" way to play with points makes all the difference in whether local folks might adopt it. Again, I know that's not true everywhere... but it is here, and means I might actually be able to get a game in!

I'm still more likely to go heavy on Kings of War, and will hopefully be making it down your way for that for some events but it's awesome to have options.

I've got to say, I am in the exact same camp. I love miniatures war-gaming, PERIOD and can be enthused about trying and giving a fair shake to anything, but our local stores are filled with some capricious as hell players. If a game doesn't check oddly specific boxes, it won't even find a small group. And God help me, i've seen GREAT, universally lauded games, fail to take hold because of said capriciousness.

My local players may now actually give AoS a look, and for that, at the very least, I am grateful, and increasingly excited.

Haha, well yes that's another way of saying it

Manchu - That's a fair point, thanks for the great reply to my post earlier. I can agree to that!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

ziggurattt wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

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.

I agree with you on this point.

Here's a sample scenario I think will probably occur.

Player A: Let's play Free Play. I'm taking Unit X.
Player B: But Unit X costs 750 points.
Player A: But we're not playing with points. It doesn't matter.
Player B: But obviously Unit X is an expensive, good unit, and my army cannot compete. I don't want to play anymore.

This is pretty much exactly how it will go.

Instead of adding the extra step where they don't have points to start, player B gets slaughtered, and then doesn't play.

That's playing into my point though. If Player B is going to stop playing because he lost, it indicates his mindset was already predisposed towards "that match wasn't fair" thinking instead of "so that's how that plays out". Player B has been conditioned by years of experiencing games through only the prism of balanced competition. The mindset of points and balance prevented Player B from enjoying the game just because he lost. Once that mindset takes root deeply enough across the AOS player base, even the people who enjoyed playing Classic AOS will start to internalize the points values of the minis, eventually subconsciously tailoring their games to be more fair regardless of their intentions. The mere existence of the points system will have a chilling effect upon the one aspect of the game that made it so unique (and admittedly unpopular with the competitive crowd).

Essentially, AOS With Points will kill AOS Classic. All that will be left is the kludgy Frankenstein's Monster created by forcing points onto a game designed almost to antagonize competitive players. Then AOS W/P will fall right into the WHFB 8th rut and die.

 Manchu wrote:
It's not an extra step - it's a different game.

Let's go back to the chess example: "Instead of taking a 9-point Queen, I'll just take nine more 1-point pawns." This is just by way of showing the problem with points-based balancing. Chess has an extremely fine-tuned system of points values for pieces but that point value of each pieces is strongly based on a static set up. Nine more pawns will always be worth more than the sum of their points. The same thing is true in miniatures games. Designers mitigate this by incorporating force organization systems. So right there you can see how using points is a basic mechanic that implies/evokes other derivative ones because the primary goal of the design was balance.

Now let's leave the world of games design upon a points cost mechanic. Having a balanced game was never the primary intention. That in turn qualifies the player base. The players do not have the same expectations as they would if they were playing a points-based pick-up game.

I'm sorry but you've lost me. What is the point you are making here?

 judgedoug wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I find myself in between camps in a lot of games, and while I don't care for 40K, it certainly does appeal to a broad market. If GW can achieve anything remotely close to that with AoS, I'm sure they'd be all for it. For myself, AoS as it was didn't interest me (although the models did) and now it might. I can't speak for you or for others - only for myself, and for myself I think this was a fantastic move on GW's part - and I'm excited by it.

So you went from a total disinterest in the game, to a healthy interest in the game, because GW will pluck someone's comp system and slap the word "official" on it?

I can say for myself yes. I play Warmachine (on break until new edition), have repeatedly considered 40k, and looked at AoS and was like "What on earth did they do? Is this a bad joke?" but thought the models were really cool (especially the guy on the Stardrake). Would not touch it with a 10-foot pole since the game seemed like it was absolute trash, and the old Warscrolls with silly crap like if you play Settra and you kneel you lose automatically because SETTRA DOES NOT KNEEL made it seem even more pathetically weird. However, now it seems GW is going to try and have some kind of balance. So I for one am getting an (un)healthy interest in the game and might very well consider dropping the cash this summer to pick up some stuff for it. I'm paying more attention to GW again, after swearing them off years ago.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That's playing into my point though. If Player B is going to stop playing because he lost, it indicates his mindset was already predisposed towards "that match wasn't fair" thinking instead of "so that's how that plays out". Player B has been conditioned by years of experiencing games through only the prism of balanced competition. The mindset of points and balance prevented Player B from enjoying the game just because he lost. Once that mindset takes root deeply enough across the AOS player base, even the people who enjoyed playing Classic AOS will start to internalize the points values of the minis, eventually subconsciously tailoring their games to be more fair regardless of their intentions. The mere existence of the points system will have a chilling effect upon the one aspect of the game that made it so unique (and admittedly unpopular with the competitive crowd).

Essentially, AOS With Points will kill AOS Classic. All that will be left is the kludgy Frankenstein's Monster created by forcing points onto a game designed almost to antagonize competitive players. Then AOS W/P will fall right into the WHFB 8th rut and die.

...but the AoS scene is already dominated by points-derived comps, so it shows that people tried the 'no points' mindset, didn't like it, and went back to points. You can talk psychology all you like but to me it reads like you are saying flashlights are bad because people have been too conditioned by light bulbs; they should use torches instead. Again, if AoS without points really does have mass appeal then you have nothing to worry about. Now if what the majority actually want is points then you have a legitimate fear for difficulty in finding games without them. But those two things are mutually exclusive.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
.

End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.

That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.

just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".

You mean like players had been doing for decades before AoS showed up? I guess people who want to play without points will just have to take the time to discuss things with their opponent and hash out how they want to play - fans of the structure-free method have been been telling everyone it's dead easy, afterall.

You miss my point. People have been playing with points for decades and will continue to. There are dozens of games catering to them, better games than AOS could ever be. AOS was never meant to cater to them. In fact, AOS tried to claim its own space instead of competing in a market it couldn't win by becoming something rarely seen, a game designed for the nontourny crowd.

Now that's gone. AOS is now trying to compete with games built from the ground up the same way a greyhound my try to compete with sharks by tying flippers to his paws. Good luck, AOS.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Essentially, AOS With Points will kill AOS Classic. All that will be left is the kludgy Frankenstein's Monster created by forcing points onto a game designed almost to antagonize competitive players. Then AOS W/P will fall right into the WHFB 8th rut and die.

Correct. And this is why the change is not "good news" for anyone - except for people who just take pleasure in GW not knowing what they are doing/flip-flopping and/or who want to see AoS specifically and GW generally fail.

When people say "at least GW are listening" - this is not always a good thing. Having an opinion does not require exercising judgment, especially when you have no skin in the game.

I am still not seeing the argument for why this is bad beyond a personal level.