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.

 Boss Salvage wrote:
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

If the LGS is your scene, that is entirely understandable. I think a lot of the frustration about AoS stems from GW not adequately qualifying their customers, or at least that is the phrase I learned from my friend who actually has sales training. The point is, you need to market to the people most likely to get on board. And pick-up gamers with any sense are going to quickly discover that AoS is not a pick-up game, even with points tacked on as an afterthought (albeit an afterthought into which a lot of effort has been poured).

 ImAGeek wrote:
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.

D'ya maybe want to read his post again:

 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)...

The thing you said? That'd be the bolded part.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 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.

Indeed, the Guildball points system is just very simple: A (Captain) + B (Mascot) + 4xC (Player), with some structure around factions.

Guildball would have been DOA if you could bring 27 Captains to a game

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:
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.

D'ya maybe want to read his post again:

 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)...

The thing you said? That'd be the bolded part.

Yeah, good point.

 Manchu wrote:
AoS is not a pick-up game, even with points tacked on as an afterthought (albeit an afterthought into which a lot of effort has been poured).

We've been over how you don't have evidence for this. It may not have been designed as such, but there's nothing to say that it can't be a pick-up game when points are added. I'm a bit bugged that you criticize me for making claims then go on making your own in the same manner.

[edit] And from the onset, "points" is shorthand for "the system they implement which includes points" and thus whatever force-org equivalent they include along with that.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
AoS is not a pick-up game, even with points tacked on as an afterthought (albeit an afterthought into which a lot of effort has been poured).

We've been over how you don't have evidence for this. It may not have been designed as such, but there's nothing to say that it can't be a pick-up game when points are added. 'm a bit bugged that you criticize me for making claims then go on making your own in the same manner.

Once again - claims and arguments are different things. Claims are supported by evidence. Arguments are supported by reason as well as claims. I am making an argument: points alone are insufficient to balance AoS because there is no basis for balancing AoS given balance was never the goal of its design. I have even explained this to you from the opposite perspective: games that do use points use them as part of a larger design framework intended to foster balance, which incorporates and defines associated mechanics, such as force organization, task resolution, and how modifiers work.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And from the onset, "points" is shorthand for "the system they implement which includes points" and thus whatever force-org equivalent they include along with that.

I'll accept you moving the goal posts like that - but you've made a huge leap from just "adding points" to making some very substantial changes to the basic design parameters of the game. Adding a force org chart is one thing. But it doesn't matter if you don't have (at least mostly) level probabilities. And so on.

You keep assuming that AoS is a pick-up game that just needs to be fixed.

 Manchu wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
AoS is not a pick-up game, even with points tacked on as an afterthought (albeit an afterthought into which a lot of effort has been poured).

We've been over how you don't have evidence for this. It may not have been designed as such, but there's nothing to say that it can't be a pick-up game when points are added. 'm a bit bugged that you criticize me for making claims then go on making your own in the same manner.

Once again - claims and arguments are different things. Claims are supported by evidence. Arguments are supported by explanations. I am making an argument: points alone are insufficient to balance AoS because there is no basis for balancing AoS given balance was never the goal of its design. I have even explained this to you from the opposite perspective: games that do use points use them as part of a larger design framework intended to foster balance, which incorporates and defines associated mechanics, such as force organization, task resolution, and how modifiers work.

We don't know that there won't be more rules for things such as force selection/organisation in the points based version though.

I think it's also relevant that the SCGT had such a great turnout - seemingly, the game works really well with their packet! Salvage is the only one I've seen mention that they've given it a go using the SCGT system, but once more folks have tried it (which will surely happen once GW is promoting it!) maybe it will turn out great

At the very least it's generating tons of interest - and if only a fraction of those turn into converts, that would still be a huge boost to the game.

Edit: Copying over the post with links to the new page

 RiTides wrote:

 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

 ImAGeek wrote:
We don't know that there won't be more rules for things such as force selection/organisation in the points based version though.

Correct - and the more changes made for Match Play the worse it becomes for Open/Narrative Play based on the principle of gamer expectations we discussed earlier. But keep in mind that the argument has heretofore been about points alone. I mean, just imagine trying to "fix" 40k and the only tool in your toolbox is the ability to change how many points any given option costs. Have fun getting feedback on your changes ...

 Manchu wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
AoS is not a pick-up game, even with points tacked on as an afterthought (albeit an afterthought into which a lot of effort has been poured).

We've been over how you don't have evidence for this. It may not have been designed as such, but there's nothing to say that it can't be a pick-up game when points are added. 'm a bit bugged that you criticize me for making claims then go on making your own in the same manner.

Once again - claims and arguments are different things. Claims are supported by evidence. Arguments are supported by reason as well as claims. I am making an argument: points alone are insufficient to balance AoS because there is no basis for balancing AoS given balance was never the goal of its design. I have even explained this to you from the opposite perspective: games that do use points use them as part of a larger design framework intended to foster balance, which incorporates and defines associated mechanics, such as force organization, task resolution, and how modifiers work.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And from the onset, "points" is shorthand for "the system they implement which includes points" and thus whatever force-org equivalent they include along with that.

I'll accept you moving the goal posts like that - but you've made a huge leap from just "adding points" to making some very substantial changes to the basic design parameters of the game. Adding a force org chart is one thing. But it doesn't matter if (at least mostly) level probabilities. And so on.

You keep assuming that AoS is a pick-up game that just needs to be fixed.

To quote Games Workshop "this means points and all" I added that because I didn't realize until a few posts ago that anyone thought anything different.

Here's the thing; you say that AoS cannot be balanced with points. You say that is because it was designed without balance in mind. I contend that your reasoning is false; AoS can be balanced with points despite it not being designed with balance in mind. Then you restate what you said before, and its coming across to me with a holier-than-thou attitude to boot. You can disagree with my reasoning, fine, but please stop claiming that you have some rational high ground.

[edit] For that matter, I can see where this is going to go. I've said my piece so I won't respond on this any further. We each have a theory about whether or not points could potentially work, we both have reasoning to support that, and that's that. I expect a coming post to have some real or implied content about how your reasoning is better, so sure, you win the argument. I'll be off enjoying the game without this news having impacted that and I hope you can do that same.

[edit2] And for evidence to support the above claim:

 Manchu wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
you say that AoS cannot be balanced with points. You say that is because it was designed without balance in mind.

Correct - an argument supported by reason. In contrast to:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
AoS can be balanced with points despite it not being designed with balance in mind.

A unilateral declaration.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Spoiler:

 NinthMusketeer 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".

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.

Sort of. I think the majority of players want a game with a points structure and tight, competitve play. I think AOS was never that game and never will be. In marketing it towards them, GW will kill it for its intended market. Then exposure will breed disdain for the "real" players, and AOS will be abandoned to die, cold, broken and alone.

I can see that, but the community as it stands looks like the majority of AoS players took the game and made it into a structured one, and are enjoying it. Certainly I do, more than WHFB even. So the disagreement comes down to "AoS was never that game and never will be" from what I see it already is that game.

I don't see that as a viable, long term solution. The players who use the comp systems are already heavily invested in Warhammer as a brand/range as well as the tournament scene. As AOS and tournaments are irreconcilably different, the marriage will become more and more strained. Frankly, I'd chalk up competitive AOS tourneys to the sunken costs fallacy in action. Sure, GW can expect official rules to improve sales for a year or two, but the congenital defects in Tourney AOS are going to catch up to it eventually. I can't see this generating more long term customer loyalty than WHFB post 7th.

To misappropriate terms from the BoardGame community, AOS seems to be hardline Ameritrash dressing up as a Eurogame in an attempt to win over the Eurogame market, a tactic fundamentally doomed to failure in a market glutted with quality wooden cube games.

Could you people take the talk about points being needed/good/bad a game mechanic etc to a new thread and leave this one for actual news and rumors please.

We have the annoucement that there coming and a rough time scale lets leave it at that in this thread. Please.

Wow Manchu, great job at sucking the fun out of this thread lol. For all your doom and gloom saying that players won't enjoy playing pick-up games with an SCGT style system, many people already do enjoy playing AoS pick-up games with a comp and many people will continue to do so.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
you say that AoS cannot be balanced with points. You say that is because it was designed without balance in mind.

Correct - an argument supported by reason. In contrast to:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
AoS can be balanced with points despite it not being designed with balance in mind.

A unilateral declaration.

Hey Manchu, since everyone is having fun putting words in your mouth, I also heard you say you were going to give me all of your LOTR figs.

 Bottle wrote:
Wow Manchu, great job at sucking the fun out of this thread lol. For all your doom and gloom saying that players won't enjoy playing pick-up games with an SCGT style system, many people already do enjoy playing AoS pick-up games with a comp and many people will continue to do so.

Bottle, you're a favorite poster of mine so I am super disappointed that you didn't bother to read my posts and just assigned a ridiculous bit of nonsense to my name. I have never said no one could or does enjoy playing AoS with comp systems; rather I have said that adding points does not make AoS a pick-up or tournament game although doing so could lead someone to falsely believe it is. I do think that someone who tries AoS thinking it is something other than what it is will likely end up with a negative view of it.

 judgedoug wrote:
Hey Manchu, since everyone is having fun putting words in your mouth, I also heard you say you were going to give me all of your LOTR figs.

Never! They are ... precious to me.

Skullhammer wrote:
Could you people take the talk about points being needed/good/bad a game mechanic etc to a new thread and leave this one for actual news and rumors please.

This is a discussion forum. This thread is about discussing news. The current news is GW intends to add points to AoS. We are discussing it.

We've gotten a bit off track here - as a reminder to everyone:

 Manchu wrote:
Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic.

This thread is for discussing new AoS releases; not for discussing AoS or GW generally.

Please direct in-depth discussion / debate of the general "points versus no points" topic to this thread in the AoS section, where it is being discussed:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/688693.page

And let's leave this thread for discussion of actual News & Rumors related to AoS. Some debate is fine... but this has really gotten off-topic for a N&R thread.

Thanks all

 judgedoug wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

AOS was losing ground to KOW, so GW tore a page right out of Mantic's playbook. That's some competition that isn't balanced.

Hah. Well, except KoW was designed from the ground up for tournament/pick up and play/hyperbalance. AoS, at no point during it's creation and execution, had any design goal of a points-based balancing mechanic. It will be amusing to see everyone argue about whatever random slapped on numbers get applied to units. AoS is so inherently random that it is impossible to balance (much like 40k is now)

I was just referring to getting the fans to do all the work for free. Mantic wrote the (badly edited, page X) book on that.

I think KoW is an amazing success for Mantic and really do hope to play the crap out of it eventually. However, AOS was not just a refinement on the existing fantasy wargame tropes, but an attempt to open up an entirely new dimension in wargaming, one I feel is terribly underserved. Sadly, I think GW shot their game in the foot, maybe even the head, by launching it from the smoldering corpse of an iconic and beloved game.

But does the recent, very successful South Coast Grand Tournament not show that it can work as a tournament game? Maybe not an ultra cut throat uber competitive game, but a fun, functional tournament game.

To clarify:

Manchu wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
Could you people take the talk about points being needed/good/bad a game mechanic etc to a new thread and leave this one for actual news and rumors please.

This is a discussion forum. This thread is about discussing news. The current news is GW intends to add points to AoS. We are discussing it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I was just referring to getting the fans to do all the work for free.

This is the brilliant part.

"How do we implement a system that people who actually participate in organized play will like?"

"Let's just say the one that is already used by the best attended events is official."

 ImAGeek wrote:
But does the recent, very successful South Coast Grand Tournament not show that it can work as a tournament game? Maybe not an ultra cut throat uber competitive game, but a fun, functional tournament game.

That depends on your definition of "tournament." Is a tournament a competition where gamers gather to determine who is the most skilled player? Or is a tournament a fun gathering where people have a good time and the result really comes down to how the dice come out more than anything because the point was just to have a nice day together?

If the latter, then yes AoS is already a great tournament game.

(BTW the latter sounds a lot more enjoyable to me than the former but YMMV.)

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I was just referring to getting the fans to do all the work for free.

This is the brilliant part.

"How do we implement a system that people who actually participate in organized play will like?"

"Let's just say the one that is already used by the best attended events is official."

I agree, that was a stroke of genius

Would love to hear from more folks who attended or have tried the SCGT system that they are implementing!

 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) ... ...

That simply isn't true. For examples:

WRG Ancients or Field of Glory (Osprey) have points and restrictive army lists.
WRG De Bellis Antiquitatis has restrictive army lists with equal numbers of units.
Polemos Marechal de l'Empire has roll-up tables that generate a realistic but random army for the campaign selected to play (e.g. Russia 1812.)
Fire and Fury asks players to analyse historical orders of battle and convert the number of troops into bases of infantry, artillery etc.

Etc, etc.

But I think that GW by running its two games -- 40K and WHFB -- on the basis of points for 15 years or more has conditioned a generation of players who have only ever played GW figure war games into thinking that points are the only way to organise things.

 RiTides wrote:
I agree, that was a stroke of genius

That approach will really please the community already using those rules - but it will simultaneously miff folks using other comps. So I expect GW will do exactly as they have said and draw from different systems. Whether this is smart or not really depends on whether it takes place in a black box, which is how GW has been doing everything for a while now. A unilateral points cost release will earn nothing but (well-deserved) criticism and will be a net-negative for the brand.

Unfortunately, that is what a company obsessed with control would do. A little more risky, probably way too risky for GW, is to let some established tournament scene take full responsibility for this process and just give them the GW imprimatur afterwards. In fact, I think the best way is to do this for several big scenes. There could be the Adepticon system and the UK system, for example. But again, this is contrary to GW's apparent preference for centralized control.

The other great thing about allowing existing player-created organizations handle this is that they have already qualified their market. The kind of people attracted to AoS tournaments are probably not expecting hard tests of skill. They just want points so they can plan to pack XYZ models (keep in mind AoS otherwise wants you to have your whole collection to hand); they are not necessarily interested in balance, as perhaps some posters here are.

 Manchu wrote:
That approach will really please the community already using those rules - but it will simultaneously miff folks using other comps. So I expect GW will do exactly as they have said and draw from different systems.

I missed that, did they say other events they'd be drawing from?

I certainly don't expect it to be the exact SCGT system - should save the files now to compare later

But if it's anything like what they did with Blood Bowl, taking the Living Rulebook and just tweaking it slightly... I think it'd be pretty solid! I also have a feeling that most folks will be happy just to have a universally acceptable "system" (should they choose to use one) for tourney play, even if it's not the one they were using previously.

Manchu wrote:[Bottle, you're a favorite poster of mine so I am super disappointed that you didn't bother to read my posts and just assigned a ridiculous bit of nonsense to my name. I have never said no one could or does enjoy playing AoS with comp systems; rather I have said that adding points does not make AoS a pick-up or tournament game although doing so could lead someone to falsely believe it is. I do think that someone who tries AoS thinking it is something other than what it is will likely end up with a negative view of it.

It's the last line I don't agree with as it seems quite arbitrary your decision that it is not good for pick-up/tournament games. Lots of people have fun playing pick-up games and tournament games with comped AoS. What does it matter if its creators in Nottingham didn't originally envisage such play with the game?

Manchu wrote:That depends on your definition of "tournament." Is a tournament a competition where gamers gather to determine who is the most skilled player? Or is a tournament a fun gathering where people have a good time and the result really comes down to how the dice come out more than anything because the point was just to have a nice day together?

If the latter, then yes AoS is already a great tournament game.

(BTW the latter sounds a lot more enjoyable to me than the former but YMMV.)

I'm not sure it's as clear cut as that. Do you think the winner of SCGT won just because the luck of the dice favoured them and player skill played no part?

Seems to me that an AoS tournament (with points) is both fun and requires skill to win - making it a great game for tournaments and pick-up games alike.

Is it offtopic to say that I love the new Orruks? I know Im a bit late but hey I will finally get a plastic shaman that I will convert for my savages, then I can finish off my Borc force with the new kits. I love that they continued with the Borcs and added more stuff to it. Best AoS release to date!

As for the points thing sorry to be simplistic but more options is always a positive if you ask me!

 RiTides wrote:
I missed that, did they say other events they'd be drawing from?

It's unclear, I'm sure deliberately (they probably honestly do not really know yet):

We’ve put these rules together in association with some of the world’s biggest tournament organisers, to create a new standard for balanced competitive play.

This indicates GW will be releasing their own comp but that existing organizers are somehow on board.

 RiTides wrote:
I certainly don't expect it to be the exact SCGT system - should save the files now to compare later

Oh lord I did not even think about it but yes there could be another round of crackdowns, like with BB.

 Bottle wrote:
it seems quite arbitrary your decision that it is not good for pick-up/tournament games

The thousands of words I have posted ITT carefully explaining otherwise and then reiterating those points in various other ways, with examples, form a strong counterpoint.

 Bottle wrote:
Do you think the winner of SCGT won just because the luck of the dice favoured them and player skill played no part?

Competitive gaming is about wringing as much luck out of the game as possible. A game's capacity for competitive play is inversely correlated to the amount of luck it involves. AoS involves a tremendous amount of luck and very little of it can be mitigated.

 Bottle wrote:
What does it matter if its creators in Nottingham didn't originally envisage such play with the game?

It matters because a game is the result of its design.

 NAVARRO wrote:
sorry to be simplistic

Apology accepted! And yes the new Orruks are very exciting!

 NAVARRO wrote:
Is it offtopic to say that I love the new Orruks? I know Im a bit late but hey I will finally get a plastic shaman that I will convert for my savages, then I can finish off my Borc force with the new kits. I love that they continued with the Borcs and added more stuff to it. Best AoS release to date!

As for the points thing sorry to be simplistic but more options is always a positive if you ask me!

I was waiting to hear your opinion in the Nav! Glad you like them

 Bottle wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Is it offtopic to say that I love the new Orruks? I know Im a bit late but hey I will finally get a plastic shaman that I will convert for my savages, then I can finish off my Borc force with the new kits. I love that they continued with the Borcs and added more stuff to it. Best AoS release to date!

As for the points thing sorry to be simplistic but more options is always a positive if you ask me!

I was waiting to hear your opinion in the Nav! Glad you like them

Thanks. Yeah they are still feral but more brutal now! I was a bit concerned with the new organization cuts but most seems to be ok and we actually got new units.
THe conversion potential of these new kits is just amazing too. These just got me into the drawing board again and I'm having so many ideas now.
Love it!

A step in the right direction

Now, they just have to un-nuke the Old World (or at the very least, introduce a more interesting background), make a more complex and strategic set of rules, and remove theses horrible sigmaries, and AOS will be a game worth playing.,