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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

I think you are correct - and that conditioning has/will continue to hit our forum especially hard because most posters are here for GW games and are likely the products of that conditioning.

 NAVARRO wrote:

 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!

That's awesome, Navarro! I've been following your plog and just love your greenskins . Looking forward to seeing how you integrate the new big fellas with them

 RiTides wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:

 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!

That's awesome, Navarro! I've been following your plog and just love your greenskins . Looking forward to seeing how you integrate the new big fellas with them

Cheers mate. Speaking of big fellas have you guys noticed that the giants now get just a slot for themselves? I bet GW is planing to expand on that front!

 Kilkrazy 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) ... ...

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.

I think that the very first points based game that I ever encountered was Trillion Credit Squadron by GDW. Pretty much a game driven by pure statistics....

I think that if they want the AoS Matched Games to work then they will also need to put in some form of force structure.

We will see, though my expectations... are not optimistic.

The Auld Grump - happy with Kings of War, but holding on to hope that Forge World comes out with a Warhammer game....

I think a good way they could encourage narrative gaming would be to put relatively significant restrictions on the army compositions for tournament gaming. That way they could work on tightening down specific factions, and people who wanted to play the Empire + Wood Elf + Dwarf Reunion Tour could do so in the narrative environment (moreso where that sort of army would belong).

It would help create a nice little distinction without necessarily forcing people into one camp or the other.

 NAVARRO wrote:
Speaking of big fellas have you guys noticed that the giants now get just a slot for themselves? I bet GW is planing to expand on that front!

Totally missed that, that's awesome!

I'd love a new Giant... or really any big independent monster. Going to see about converting my Maw Krusha to have no rider

 RiTides wrote:
I'd love a new Giant... or really any big independent monster.

I would wager you can look forward to many more big releases, the kind of stuff that will be hard to rip off in a future defined by 3-D printing. The maw-krusha ... or cabbage dragon, as I affectionately think of it ... along with the Star Drake are probably pretty indicative of what's to come - not to mention that Or(ru)ks have basically been re-scaled to Stormcast size, part of gradually shifting to 32mm Heroic, I think.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I think that if they want the AoS Matched Games to work then they will also need to put in some form of force structure.

It really, really depends on what you mean by "work." The simplest proposition is that GW just needs some framework so that players know what to tote to an organized event as AoS as-is seems to envision the players having their entire collections to hand. So that's the baseline. If the goal has anything to do with "balance," however, it will require what amounts to a spin-off game.

Ah, it's great news that there are going to be points costs again. Will have to wait and see what that entails. I really like the new Chaos stuff for AoS especially, it would be nice to have a more structured and crunchy way to play with them.

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.

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

I just want to say. As someone who only causally takes a peak at this thread, just to see what is going on in the game that replaced the one I use to play. I can't even find these "3 ways to play" rumours because of the amount of posts arguing about if points could save AoS. I had to give up trying to find it posted here and had to look up the repost of it on Nakfa.

I never touched Age of Sigmar after reading the rules for it. When the points system/force org/ect comes back into the game I will look at it. If the new rules impress me, I might actually even try and game of it. I only play pick-up games, and no one even tries to play that game pick up from what I've seen.

 Lockark wrote:
I can't even find these "3 ways to play" rumours because of

Conveniently someone updates the first post of this thread regularly ...

Count me among those really happy with the Ironjawz release, I don't play greenskins but it is nice to see a less niche release of new models. Ironjawz feel like they work really well in terms of players adding to collections they already have, where are the previous ones either built on the starter or seemed very stand-alone.

The best chance the line has of picking up steam/continuing to do so is probably more factions getting facelifts ... of course this also the most expensive and risky way to expand sales. I think Sigmarines, Khorne Guys, and now Orruks have been on target but imagine how bad even a single miss could hurt.

I was about to say it will be trickier to upscale the less monstrous factions but then I remembered Duardin.

I know I am late to the party, but is their any credibility to the whole "Tomb kings" and "Britonians" not actually being squated but going to be rereleased for AoS? Can't remember where, but thought I had read Britonians where all actually already done in new plastics waiting to be released when AoS changed everything.

 mjl7atlas wrote:
I know I am late to the party, but is their any credibility to the whole "Tomb kings" and "Britonians" not actually being squated but going to.be rereleased for AoS? Can't remember where but thought I had read Britonians where all actually already done in new plastics waiting to be released when AoS changed everything.

That rumor came from faeit, who got it from a poster on Something Awful...

Make of that what you will.

Well that sucks because those are my 2 favorite armies. Figures.

This is great news! Too bad that they are probably not bringing the Old World back, but this might still be enough to get me to finish my Stormcasts. I am not a competitive player by any means, far from it, but I still like to have some bloody structure, so I welcome the points. It doesn't need to be perfect to be useful.

And yes, this is a pro-point comment from a person who doesn't currently play AoS. But certainly the whole idea is to attract more people to the game?

Oh, the new orcs (orruks?) are gorgeous!

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

I think you are correct - and that conditioning has/will continue to hit our forum especially hard because most posters are here for GW games and are likely the products of that conditioning.

To be fair, pretty much every other GW game since the early/mid 90's has used points systems as well, as does every major tabletop wargame out there currently, such as X-Wing, Warmahordes, Dropzone Commander, Flames of War, Bolt Action, Kings of War, Heavy Gear, Infinity, Battletech, Firestorm Armada, etc ad nauseum. Even relatively old school games like OGRE/GEV use a points system.

Wargames in general typically run on points systems. There are exceptions, but usually these games also tend to provide pre-determined forces of some sort with very defined battlefields and objectives, they don't do what GW does and say "here's some random objective, arrange the board however you want, bring whatever you want, and go for it!". Even GW's older games that had no points were intended to be much more structured than what they've been trying to do of late. Rogue Trader advocated a 3rd player GM who who select forces and create the scenario in detail for example.

To expect that people would just embrace such an open ended and unstructured environment would be expecting a lot I would think.

 Lockark 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.

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

I just want to say. As someone who only causally takes a peak at this thread, just to see what is going on in the game that replaced the one I use to play. I can't even find these "3 ways to play" rumours because of the amount of posts arguing about if points could save AoS. I had to give up trying to find it posted here and had to look up the repost of it on Nakfa.

I never touched Age of Sigmar after reading the rules for it. When the points system/force org/ect comes back into the game I will look at it. If the new rules impress me, I might actually even try and game of it. I only play pick-up games, and no one even tries to play that game pick up from what I've seen.

page 1 first post... eagle eye

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, pretty much every other GW game since the early/mid 90's has used points systems as well, as does every major tabletop wargame out there currently, such as X-Wing, Warmahordes, Dropzone Commander, Flames of War, Bolt Action, Kings of War, Heavy Gear, Infinity, Battletech, Firestorm Armada, etc ad nauseum.

That's not a coincidence.Publishers take the market into consideration. Specifically, force orgs and points are game mechanics but also pull double duty vis-a-vis organizing a product line. More importantly, these mechanics are the basis for pick-up gaming, which is super important if your potential customers are buying games to play and participate in events at game stores. So incorporating these mechanics has a lot to do with factors that aren't intrinsically related to the game itself. Miniatures games do not of themselves require points-based balancing and they have certainly not always had it. As offline retail becomes less important, don't be surprised to see more designers finally innovating away from points.

 Manchu wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, pretty much every other GW game since the early/mid 90's has used points systems as well, as does every major tabletop wargame out there currently, such as X-Wing, Warmahordes, Dropzone Commander, Flames of War, Bolt Action, Kings of War, Heavy Gear, Infinity, Battletech, Firestorm Armada, etc ad nauseum.

That's not a coincidence.Publishers take the market into consideration. Specifically, force orgs and points are game mechanics but also pull double duty vis-a-vis organizing a product line. More importantly, these mechanics are the basis for pick-up gaming, which is super important if your potential customers are buying games to play and participate in events at game stores. So incorporating these mechanics has a lot to do with factors that aren't intrinsically related to the game itself. Miniatures games do not of themselves require points-based balancing and they have certainly not always had it. As offline retail becomes less important, don't be surprised to see more designers finally innovating away from points.

Right, but then in instances where games do not have points values, they also aren't the open ended "bring anything and everything" that GW has tried, at least as far as I'm aware. These tend to be either historical in nature, or more along the lines of old school Rogue Trader, where there's either existing material laying out what forces will be used and what the battlefield will look like, or they have a third party set those things up. I can't recall any wargame that left everything from the factions present, to the army compostion, battle objective, and tabletop setup basically completely up to the opposing players to settle on themselves the way AoS did. As far as I'm aware, games either have points systems, or relatively detailed pre-determined force setups and battlefields, or a GM to do that. The "conditioning" to points is a relatively natural one, and one that tabletop wargames have used even before GW existed (e.g. OGRE/GEV), as otherwise you need these other mechanisms to prevent things from turning into a mess, and with GW's business model seemingly centered around brick and mortar stores, it certainly doesn't appear that foregoing all these mechanics (points, predetermined scenarios, GM's) has been functioning as desired.

 Vaktathi wrote:
"bring anything and everything"

That's not really how AoS necessarily works. The idea is much closer to what you might find among historical gamers. A couple of guys who have been collecting WW2 stuff for years might say, hey let's do a game where we can use XYZ - not because it is a balanced match up, not because it is historically accurate, but just because it seems fun and we have the models. Now of course if it doesn't seem fun to them, they won't do it. This is nothing new and it's certainly goes back further than points-based listbuilding. AoS only seems unique because people used to buying GW are so inured to this LGS-centric model of pick-up gaming.

But getting back to KK's post - GW have grown a market that expects points. You can even tell from the responses in this thread that the mere promise of points is enough to make some posters warily soften up on AoS. The trouble is, I think people hate the idea of not having points more than they like the reality of points. A large number of posts on this site come down to complaints about how much a unit or option costs.

 Manchu wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
"bring anything and everything"

That's not really how AoS necessarily works. The idea is much closer to what you might find among historical gamers. A couple of guys who have been collecting WW2 stuff for years might say, hey let's do a game where we can use XYZ - not because it is a balanced match up, not because it is historically accurate, but just because it seems fun and we have the models. Now of course if it doesn't seem fun to them, they won't do it. This is nothing new and it's certainly goes back further than points-based listbuilding. AoS only seems unique because people used to buying GW are so inured to this LGS-centric model of pick-up gaming.

I'm sure some people do that kind of thing, but it doesn't seem like the way most people would play a game routinely, and I can't recall an entire game and product line based around that concept (even stuff going back to pre-GW days, like wargames from the 70's) without any of the aforementioned structures or GM, especially a game from a company built around brick and mortar stores. Even Chainmail (the D&D precursor) had a points system.

Do a little research, seems like you will be surprised by how little formal structure there is out there in miniatures wargaming generally. A lot of it comes down to scenario play, which GW is marketing as "open play" and "narrative play." I would just call this "miniatures wargaming." From my perspective, looking at it historically, point-based listbuilding is a niche of wargaming, a niche built on the a certain approach to the market, itself based on the now-declining LGS model of retail and principally sold to a then-younger although now thirtysomethingish customer base. That's who is supposed to key into Match Play. I don't think that's the customer base that is going to grow GW's business.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
"bring anything and everything"

That's not really how AoS necessarily works. The idea is much closer to what you might find among historical gamers. A couple of guys who have been collecting WW2 stuff for years might say, hey let's do a game where we can use XYZ - not because it is a balanced match up, not because it is historically accurate, but just because it seems fun and we have the models. Now of course if it doesn't seem fun to them, they won't do it. This is nothing new and it's certainly goes back further than points-based listbuilding. AoS only seems unique because people used to buying GW are so inured to this LGS-centric model of pick-up gaming.

I'm sure some people do that kind of thing, but it doesn't seem like the way most people would play a game routinely, and I can't recall an entire game and product line based around that concept (even stuff going back to pre-GW days, like wargames from the 70's) without any of the aforementioned structures or GM, especially a game from a company built around brick and mortar stores. Even Chainmail (the D&D precursor) had a points system.

Maybe more people would play that way regularly if they ever tried it in the first place. With the right people, it can be a lot of fun and very easy to start. For people who want structure and balance, not so much I guess.


Most of my BFG games played out that way, with either my entire collection or forces chosen by thematic considerations. That method made it incredibly rewarding every time I bought a single miniature because I didn't have to wait for a balanced force or even collect a complete fleet if I only wanted a couple ships. Sadly, it came to an end when my brother and all my friends except A and B moved away, where A and B see every board game as a match of skill and cunning between the two of them that must end in humiliation for the loser. Then it stopped being fun.

I view AOS as a tabletop wargame designed for people who are not heavy into tabletop wargaming. For collectors, you might say. The mechanics seem to reflect this with their whimsy.

AGAIN:

 RiTides wrote:
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

EDIT: Nevermind

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I view AOS as a tabletop wargame designed for people who are not heavy into tabletop wargaming. For collectors, you might say.

I totally agree - and as ambivalent as I feel about any "official" points system there is one factor that I think really calls out for it. The way you are supposed to select forces in AoS is great if you have everything you own at your fingertips. But it's not so great for participating in an event, especially if you need to travel to get there. A game with a points system has a big advantage in that situation. So even if you are only going to an event to have a good time, and you don't care at all about being competitive, having a points system can help you plan what to bring along. Now that is a very modest use for a points system, of course, and doesn't get to what I think most people really want out of it, i.e., some kind of balance for pick-up gaming. But I think GW's announcement speaks to organized play, not necessarily balance.

Sorry.

I'm glad to see the increase in the minis' scale. It makes them seem more imposing and heroic next to the classic range. Shame about the prices.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm glad to see the increase in the minis' scale. It makes them seem more imposing and heroic next to the classic range.

I'm really interested to see what happens when someone mixes things together - the Stormcast didn't really have anything to be mixed with, but the Orcs certainly do!

Navarro posted above and has some fantastic Savage Orcs already built for AoS. I think having those next to their hulking brethren here (looking much like nobs do compared to regular boyz in 40k - or even bigger!) could be quite cool

 RiTides wrote:
the Stormcast didn't really have anything to be mixed with, but the Orcs certainly do!

Don't forget Chaos. IMO the old Chaos Warriors don't look great on round bases, since their pose is all smooshed up to cram into rank and file, and they look worse next to 32mm Khorne dudes.