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.

 DarkBlack wrote:
new leadership that is trying to right the ship

Plausible explanation - but executives are rarely game designers or even gamers. "Let them have points" in this case is as naive and unknowingly facetious as "let them eat cake."

 DarkBlack wrote:
For me it looks like the new leadership that is trying to right the ship realised that many people want points or just some kind of balancing system, because of the number of people who asked for it in the FAQ question request.

I didn't make that connection - it would be really interesting if this was prompted by the FAQ request! I have a feeling it might have been longer coming than that, though... couldn't have hurt that they were actively soliciting feedback on the Facebook page, though.

I am really happy with the responsiveness from GW and the trend of their decisions lately (bringing back specialist games, responding to feedback, being more involved, etc). Rountree has definitely made some great strides in his time at the helm so far

 Manchu wrote:
I honestly have been. But again: The point of AoS is NOT to test the relative skill of the players. It is not designed to do that. Hence there is no substantive mechanic to balance the opposing forces ... which is the heart of pick-up gaming. How do you tell if a game is designed for pick-up play? Points-based balance is a huge tell. So when you add points to AoS, the implication is that now AoS can handle pick-up games. But actually nothing has changed. The units were never designed to be balanced. The game was never designed to pit balanced forces against one another. Tacking on a points system is therefore an empty promise bound to disappoint the unwary.

So because AoS was not designed to be balanced, points can never make it so? Or that GWs points won't/are unlikely to make it so? I agree with the latter, while my personal experience with point-balanced AoS discounts the former.

RiTides - I think it has to do with noticing how self-organized gamers can generate impressive sales. Adam Troke all but said as much in his Middle-earth Strategy Battles Game presentation. The well-attended AoS tourney mentioned earlier was actually reported ITT before it happened. GW took note of that and made arrangements to be there. I'd say there seems to be some "reawakening" in Nottingham as to the sales potential in holding/supporting organized events.

I certainly will dust off my models now that a point system is being introduced. I do hope however that there is some sort of limit on the amount of model spam you can have. I think that is one of the nicer features of WarmaHordes. With how AoS allows for taking models from any army I think it would add to strategy and diversity of models to not allow multiple's of things, to an extend.

I view points as a system that people who dont know one another can come to an agreement on a common ground. Its hard to play a pick up game when you dont know where to start. Bring what you want is not a viable solution imo.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So because AoS was not designed to be balanced, points can never make it so?

Correct. It takes more than points. Even games that use points don't only use points in order to balance options.

Chopxsticks wrote:
I view points as a system that people who dont know one another can come to an agreement on a common ground. Its hard to play a pick up game when you dont know where to start. Bring what you want is not a viable solution imo.

All true and correct - BUT the issue is that AoS was not designed for pick-up games in the first place. The model of gamers primarily meeting up in stores to play against strangers may not be the most lucrative, not least of all because the future of retail is online rather than in the brick and mortar shops that have traditionally hosted pick-up gaming.

 RiTides wrote:
Doug - I think he meant more the fact that it took the Rules Committee to really makes the KoW ruleset more balanced / solid (so Mantic basically outsourced that). Honestly, that part was a really good idea so I wouldn't mind seeing others go that route

It's definitely an open question as to how this will fall out with the playerbase / potential playerbase / etc. Will be interesting to see! I do agree with Orlando that it was the best decision they could make right now - we'll see if it helps or hurts in the long term.

Yes, I know, and it worked admirably, because Kings of War was designed from the ground up to be balanced. Notice the system is far more elegant, with the vast majority of probabilities being level, producing predictable results. This is something GW only partially achieved in the Tuomas Pirinen renaissance of 6th edition and abandoned completely with 8th edition, but kept up the pretense of "balance" by including points that were impossible to "balance" anyway because of the inherent nature of the unpredictability of event core aspects of the ruleset.

None of Age of Sigmar's design goals had any sort of balancing or points based mechanic built in. There is no foundation to work on as there was no thought to giving it one.

RiTides wrote:Points are just part of it - hopefully the SCGT guys did their homework! Has anyone played in one of their events / tried their system and can give an account?

It's the only way I've played my last few games of AOS. GeeDub really could not have endorsed a better comp pack / balancing system, SCGT has been quite enjoyable. (And of course the Dub couldn't really have balanced this thing themselves, even the new Dub that listens to its community from time to time So all the smarter the decision to invest in the folks most dedicated to bridging Oldhammer with Nü.)

Manchu wrote:You would be best served not to, unless there is a lot more to it than simply adding points.

I'd recommend having a look at the rest of the SCGT pack as well, not just the army balancing bit. Not as many house rulings as you'd expect, and the ones made are decent. Good scoring schemes too, balance of scenario and killing, etc, etc.

As for the current AOS open gamers lamenting the return of the match players, I don't know what to say, except that competitive WHFB players are not as WAAC as you may think. Sure some are, but plenty of us are in event play for very different things beyond crushing our enemies and feasting upon their tears ... And I still don't get why open gamers can't just have their open games alongside those of us who want match play pickup games, as narrative gamers set up their narrative games back there in the corner All of these flavors of gaming have existed throughout Warhammer's long life, people!

And one more thought: These fears I'm hearing from current AOSers about the return of the vets makes me wonder who most open gamers are. Locally, AOS is played largely by folks who fled 40k 1-2 editions back because it got WAAC-y and stupid (for the record, I fled 40k 2-3 editions back because of the same), but never played WHFB for one reason or another - generally ridiculous model investment / they were playing other stuff / they didn't play mini games until recently. Match play isn't here to help the vets or 40k players or *shudder* Warmahorders steal this game from you, it's more like GW acknowledging that this game you play with a relatively small pool of players is part of a long lineage of fantasy gaming, with all the flavors of gamers that have gone with that.

- Salvage

 judgedoug wrote:
None of Age of Sigmar's design goals had any sort of balancing or points based mechanic built in. There is no foundation to work on as there was no thought to giving it one.

I wonder how a game designer would feel reading these posts about AoS. Did you know the secret to balancing a game is finding the correct arbitrary number to assign as a points value? So easy!

I expect the matched play will follow the SCGT style of being geared to a number of specific scenarios rather than just a strict point list for units. The SCGT guys have talked about how their pool choices were determined by considering the scenarios. With or without points, I don't think AoS makes for a good "battleline" game.

RiTides, in addition to the videos, the last Facehammer podcast has Russ (who wrote the pool choices in SCGT) going around the tables during SCGT and talking tactics. http://www.facehammer.co.uk/warhammer-age-of-sigmar-podcast-article.php?podcastid=41

I'm not as worried about the impact this will have on the spirit of AoS as some people. I'm particularly interested in the narrative rules, and I feel like I'd be even more enthused to get a group narrative campaign going (beyond just the book scenarios, but with progression and all that) than just playing tourney-style games.

Plus, and this idea has been talked about on some of the podcasts with these guys already, there's great potential in a constantly updating "matched play" system that goes through seasons of say monsters being half points, or playing in the Realm of Fire (so shooting is better), etc. I don't think this system is going to be as rigidly stuck in place as it was when you'd print an army book and that was it for years.

 Manchu wrote:
The model of gamers primarily meeting up in stores to play against strangers may not be the most lucrative, not least of all because the future of retail is online rather than in the brick and mortar shops that have traditionally hosted pick-up gaming.

This is probably the actual reason from GW's new executives on high - game stores are on life support, as Asmodee/FFG and Privateer Press' recent diversionary defribillation attempt made that way more apparent that it is the case. GW must be raking in money hand over fist with direct sales and Asmodee/FFG & PP are moving to match that model. Once the average FLGS is gone, most sales will be online, direct, and sans discount. It's incredibly forward thinking of GW.

@Boss Savage - I don't think that the people who like the game AoS actually is are afraid of the "vets returning" or whatever because ... well, that is unlikely to be relevant to them. Where would they run into those players? The people we are talking about don't play at stores because they aren't looking for pick-up games. And they don't play in tournaments because they aren't playing in order to test their skill. People who like AoS for the game that it is are interested in the drama of the conflicts. That is why they value - not just tolerate - the randomness of AoS special rules. That is why they the like - not just put up with - the ruleset generally. Now those who want to play in AoS tournaments are doing that - and lo and behold there are already comp systems produced by folks who are exactly the most qualified to make them: TOs and tournament competitors. The best thing GW can do is just pin an "official" badge on the tournament comp of the tournament that attracts the most players. The problem is, folks who think this means AoS is a pick-up game system will be sorely disappointed.

Ya, I cant vouch for other area's but in my area we dont have pick up games of AoS. Several of the game shops located within 30-40miles of me do however have designated nights for Warmahordes and I can show up with a 25/35/50 point list and meet up with someone else that night to play.

Either side of the coin I cant see how this is gonna work out honestly. Didnt prior points balance also take into account what your army had access too, and how your own units buffed itself. AoS is so open, its nice, but ya I dont think it has the foundation for a balanced point system.

Doug - Well you don't have to sell me on KoW, I am totally sold . It seems like the system SCGT implemented worked really well at their event though to attract so many players! I'm not saying it's ideal - but it has generated a ton of interest and they were able to hold a very successful / well attended event. If it can generate some momentum for AoS, that would be awesome.

Manchu - Agreed, awesome on the "awakening" GW has undergone regarding organized events. That was sorely missed for a long time and it's great to see it being implemented for AoS, too! Whether it takes the form of prize support, just acknowledging the event's existence (they used to advertise all the GTs in White Dwarf, etc), or even adopting the comp system. I honestly wish they had done that back in WHFB when it became nearly unplayable =/

So yeah, good signs from GW on these fronts

i feel like its 2001 all over again

Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk) and people are STILL defending AoS' lack of any balance.

Dat GW Stockholm Syndrome. So glad the new management is ignoring these people.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk) and people are STILL defending AoS' lack of any balance.

Dat GW Stockholm Syndrome. So glad the new management is ignoring these people.

This post is the definition of accidental sarcasm.

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces

Your ignorance is showing.

RiTides - My guess is the timeline of this "reawakening" was asynchronous to the development of AoS. The promise of "Match Play" strikes me as GW's attempt to align the marketing goals of AoS with their rediscovered interest in organized events (maybe especially events organized by players).

 Manchu wrote:
@Boss Savage - I don't think that the people who like the game AoS actually is are afraid of the "vets returning" or whatever because ... well, that is unlikely to be relevant to them. Where would they run into those players? The people we are talking about don't play at stores because they aren't looking for pick-up games. And they don't play in tournaments because they aren't playing in order to test their skill. People who like AoS for the game that it is are interested in the drama of the conflicts. That is why they value - not just tolerate - the randomness of AoS special rules. That is why they the like - not just put up with - the ruleset generally. Now those who want to play in AoS tournaments are doing that - and lo and behold there are already comp systems produced by folks who are exactly the most qualified to make them: TOs and tournament competitors. The best thing GW can do is just pin an "official" badge on the tournament comp of the tournament that attracts the most players. The problem is, folks who think this means AoS is a pick-up game system will be sorely disappointed.

well if thats the case you never play with strangers or pick up games nothing changed. Put what ever mpdel you want down say its fair and go for it. The points only effect pickup gamers. Which you said you are not. Thats like a fish complaining about road traffic.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces

Your ignorance is showing.

RiTides - My guess is the timeline of this "reawakening" was asynchronous to the development of AoS. The promise of "Match Play" strikes me as GW's attempt to align the marketing goals of AoS with their rediscovered interest in organized events (maybe especially events organized by players).

Yeah I'm sure it has nothing to do with the crap fiscal years GW has had recently.

So... Are there some points being made or are there just folks not happy GW is giving the people what they have asked for?

OgreChubbs wrote:
well if thats the case you never play with strangers or pick up games nothing changed

You are joining a long conversation in which this point has already been extensively covered.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
So... Are there some points being made or are there just folks not happy GW is giving the people what they have asked for?

Well it's about the same as usual. A bunch of folks who admit to not playing AoS weigh in extensively on the subject ...

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Yeah I'm sure it has nothing to do with the crap fiscal years GW has had recently.

Dunno what your point is. GW wants to make money? Agreed but so what? It doesn't mean they know how to do it. Again - if we can assume that GW wants to add points to make AoS profitable then we can also assume that GW axed WHFB because WHFB was unprofitable despite it having points. The conclusion is not that points make a game profitable; the conclusion is GW does not know how to make a profitable game.

 Boss Salvage wrote:

RiTides wrote:Points are just part of it - hopefully the SCGT guys did their homework! Has anyone played in one of their events / tried their system and can give an account?

It's the only way I've played my last few games of AOS. GeeDub really could not have endorsed a better comp pack / balancing system, SCGT has been quite enjoyable. (And of course the Dub couldn't really have balanced this thing themselves, even the new Dub that listens to its community from time to time So all the smarter the decision to invest in the folks most dedicated to bridging Oldhammer with Nü.)

Manchu wrote:You would be best served not to, unless there is a lot more to it than simply adding points.

I'd recommend having a look at the rest of the SCGT pack as well, not just the army balancing bit. Not as many house rulings as you'd expect, and the ones made are decent. Good scoring schemes too, balance of scenario and killing, etc, etc.

Thanks for that, Salvage

Links are all here:
http://heelanhammer.com/scgt/

Direct links:
Tournament Pack
Battle Plan Pack
House Rules & FAQ Pack
Pool Cost Document

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk) and people are STILL defending AoS' lack of any balance.

Dat GW Stockholm Syndrome. So glad the new management is ignoring these people.

They don't. I've just discovered Guild Ball for example - no points at all, you just take 6 team members, one has to be a captain and one a mascot.

Hey Manchu, would you be interested in playing any of the thousands of other wargames that exist that do not have points values? It seems like between the two of us, we own at least half of them all, and about - no exaggeration - ten thousand non-GW miniatures of all manufacturers and scales.

Wait, hold on, we can't, there's no points systems in any of those rulesets. And what does a unit of Dutch Grenadiers from 1701 counts-as in 40k, the Only Wargame Ever?

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk) and people are STILL defending AoS' lack of any balance.

Dat GW Stockholm Syndrome. So glad the new management is ignoring these people.

They don't. I've just discovered Guild Ball for example - no points at all, you just take 6 team members, one has to be a captain and one a mascot.

so there is a stucture, in AoS one guy could take 9 guys 3 captians and 6 mascots because...reasons.

Manchu wrote:the game AoS actually is

Fair points Manchu, including the quotes on vets stampeding back to GeeDub's embrace that I barely held back adding myself. There's a fair bit of panic on the FB site for the local AOSers ... but as you say, it's not like they come out to the LGS much any more. Funnily enough I may be the most active public player of AOS out here, and I play pretty infrequently and heavily rely upon comp packs when I do

RiTides wrote:Well you don't have to sell me on KoW, I am totally sold

Yea, pretty much, as are my club mates (that and Malifaux / X-Wing). I might convince one or two of the dudes to try SCGT with me, however I feel like we'd all be better off spending that time practicing these not-GW offerings, as NE events are heating up.

- Salvage

coldgaming wrote:
I expect the matched play will follow the SCGT style of being geared to a number of specific scenarios rather than just a strict point list for units. The SCGT guys have talked about how their pool choices were determined by considering the scenarios.

This kind of summarizes my split view of them adding points being a good idea while also having little faith in the execution. I believe points can be used to make AoS good for pick up play, but I think they will instead add in points designed for tournament play; which I don't believe is what the majority of people actually want. A subtle difference that will cause a lot of headaches, in other words. But I think it will work out in the end because the comp community will pick up the slack and now have a minimum baseline that they have to exceed in order to draw an audience. We'll end up with SCGT becoming the official tournament comp in the form of GW's official system (I expect that the two will be the same thing) with a handful of others recognized by the community to suit different preferences.

 Manchu wrote:
(1) a points system is a basic mechanic that affects the rest of the game's design

BattleTech introduced (and later even refinded) a points based system. Hasn't changed the way they design the game one iota. They're still making hyper-inefficient designs and amazingly good designs and new weapons that are genuinely better than previous versions to this day. Hell, this is a game where one faction is objectively better than the other in every respect, yet the game still functions.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
So... Are there some points being made or are there just folks not happy GW is giving the people what they have asked for?

Both. A whole lot of the latter, though.