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.

If AoS gets points for tournament play I expect GW will "sponsor" one of the community systems already in place.

While that would be nice I think it unlikely. Going on GW's history of 'engagement' with the community (which seems to mostly consist of suing it), they'll produce their own, which won't be as good, and demand that everyone switch to it.

And the vast majority will, despite it not being as good.

We`ll see. But I expect not much. Because GW will find a way to screw it up.
Sorry for the cynic post, but history made me wary of such changes.

This is really exciting news. Probably the biggest 40k news in half a decade if true. 40k currently suffers from a plethora of issues ranging from absurd point costs for numerous units, horrible rules for others & codex's that are not even remotely competitive. I hope GW isn't just playing with words & takes an aggressive approach at resolving the many issues that 40k currently has.

Even with points, AoS would need an almost complete rewrite to be OKAY for competetive games.

You just can't say "goblins 2points, Chaos warriors 20points and youplay 1000 points"

It does not work with the win conditions in the rules and the way setup is done. And those are half the rules!

RoninXiC wrote:
Even with points, AoS would need an almost complete rewrite to be OKAY for competetive games.

You just can't say "goblins 2points, Chaos warriors 20points and youplay 1000 points"

It does not work with the win conditions in the rules and the way setup is done. And those are half the rules!

All scenarios (I think around 50 at this point) have their own win conditions instead of the rule panflet ones so that wouldn't be a problem. Don't see a problem with setup, I like alternate unit deployment myself and that's how it was done in WHFB.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
You know, I could go for a soft comped narrative event. If GW go this route with the existing 40k ruleset I may dip my toes back in (as will a few others of my ragedy decrepit old school crew).

I'll reserve judgement on how they handle things. We know how badly they could screw this up.

I have a feeling that this is the way they will go. Everyone is seeing "organised play" and thinking this means they are suddenly going to wave a wand and balance both games ready for some serious hardcore tournament play. When the trend over the last 18 months has been to move the rules more and more towards narrative play. We've had some seriously fluffy rule sets come out which has resulted in a lot of power creep. Now while I still think the weaker codices will get their own bumps eventually, I don't think GW is aiming towards tournament play.

My guess would be large scale narrative campaigns or something akin to that.

MacMuckles wrote:

 Haechi wrote:
Can someone explain Organized play please?

Tournaments

Organised play doesn't just refer to tournaments, but any sort of, you know, organised play.

The info in the first post is referring to campaigns, rather than tournies.

GW already has returned to one day and weekend campaigns at Warhammer World. There have been several events that MongooseMatt has reported on over the past nine months. (All AoS, so far.)

I don't think Warhammer World ever entirely stopped. It was just the rest of the world that they stopped bothering with.

I'm really excited for this - They will most likely make some mistakes along the way (as everyone does when returning to something they scrapped), but the idea that they recognize the need for presence in the area gives me hope.

I applaud them for turning around and finally realizing that they have to take this scene seriously. The way I see it, it can't get any worse than it is now - So I will watch with much anticipation

 Pacific wrote:
While that would be nice I think it unlikely. Going on GW's history of 'engagement' with the community (which seems to mostly consist of suing it), they'll produce their own, which won't be as good, and demand that everyone switch to it.

And the vast majority will, despite it not being as good.

That's what I believe too.

The best for them would possibly be to just endorse a comp system and let the community keep it balanced. They wont do this of course and the dwindling AoS community will be further fragmented and I can't imagine a lot of people who quit AoS will come back just because GW puts out yet another comp system (and presumably a sub-par one at that).

I guess it could make it a bit more palatable for someone coming new to AoS?

 General Kroll wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
You know, I could go for a soft comped narrative event. If GW go this route with the existing 40k ruleset I may dip my toes back in (as will a few others of my ragedy decrepit old school crew).

I'll reserve judgement on how they handle things. We know how badly they could screw this up.

I have a feeling that this is the way they will go. Everyone is seeing "organised play" and thinking this means they are suddenly going to wave a wand and balance both games ready for some serious hardcore tournament play. When the trend over the last 18 months has been to move the rules more and more towards narrative play. We've had some seriously fluffy rule sets come out which has resulted in a lot of power creep. Now while I still think the weaker codices will get their own bumps eventually, I don't think GW is aiming towards tournament play.

My guess would be large scale narrative campaigns or something akin to that.

From what Ive heard, there are definetally going to be large scale narrative events, but it does sound like atleast one tourney will be coming, no idea what the set up will be for it doh

Somehow when I think of GW fixing their rules to suit "Organized Play" or healing their relationship with the community I picture the scene from Frankenstein where the monster is playing with the girl...

...Or Young Frankenstein where he backhands the little girl so far she ends up back in her bedroom.

The problems I foresee here is GW has a long uphill battle to convince lost Fantasy players- or anyone who likes points balance- to come back, and an even longer battle if they want to compete or compare to the ITC in 40k.

 Swampmist wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
You know, I could go for a soft comped narrative event. If GW go this route with the existing 40k ruleset I may dip my toes back in (as will a few others of my ragedy decrepit old school crew).

I'll reserve judgement on how they handle things. We know how badly they could screw this up.

I have a feeling that this is the way they will go. Everyone is seeing "organised play" and thinking this means they are suddenly going to wave a wand and balance both games ready for some serious hardcore tournament play. When the trend over the last 18 months has been to move the rules more and more towards narrative play. We've had some seriously fluffy rule sets come out which has resulted in a lot of power creep. Now while I still think the weaker codices will get their own bumps eventually, I don't think GW is aiming towards tournament play.

My guess would be large scale narrative campaigns or something akin to that.

From what Ive heard, there are definetally going to be large scale narrative events, but it does sound like atleast one tourney will be coming, no idea what the set up will be for it doh

Sounds like a step in the right direction, I still don't think the game is hugely suited to tournament play, but I don't think it would need that much work to make it fit. Really their priority needs to be updating the weaker codices. Stat.

swiped from facebook

"Organized Play kits for one of the first events - this one is for 40k but it gives a decent idea of what is to come.
These will be sent to GW stores and FLGS alike, hopefully stuff like this will help AoS make some more headway in the FLGS space."

Aaand again with the "Youngblood" crap. Time to bring out the synthetic sideburns again.
Glad they're doing things like that, but seriously? Age segregation?

 Verviedi wrote:
Aaand again with the "Youngblood" crap. Time to bring out the synthetic sideburns again.
Glad they're doing things like that, but seriously? Age segregation?

I really don't have a problem with that. Having played 13 year olds in tournaments who lost their minds when a tank died, it doesn't upset me. Also, I don't think younger players are forced to play in the Youngblood events. It could also be that they play in the broader event, but have a different scoring metric (ie, came in 4th but 1st amongst the Youngbloods).

Mind you, I've played some teens that were totally cool opponents, and had grown men openly change dice rolls in front of me to get what they wanted, so it's not all restricted to age.

I'm curious what they will do with AoS, my local store manager has been talking about GW looking for a point/comp system and they themselves sponsoring stores that run a system and give feedback for one. At least that was his reasoning for running a AoS campaign/tourney soonish.
I would like to see the next rule edition for 40k be more balanced, but my hopes are not that high. After the big book goes out, I honestly do think ang new codexes on the slate should be released as soon as possible so that everyone is on a more level playing field. Unrealistic, but one can dream.

 Lorek wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Aaand again with the "Youngblood" crap. Time to bring out the synthetic sideburns again.
Glad they're doing things like that, but seriously? Age segregation?

I really don't have a problem with that. Having played 13 year olds in tournaments who lost their minds when a tank died, it doesn't upset me. Also, I don't think younger players are forced to play in the Youngblood events. It could also be that they play in the broader event, but have a different scoring metric (ie, came in 4th but 1st amongst the Youngbloods).

Mind you, I've played some teens that were totally cool opponents, and had grown men openly change dice rolls in front of me to get what they wanted, so it's not all restricted to age.

Well, I can hardly argue with a mod.

 Verviedi wrote:
Aaand again with the "Youngblood" crap. Time to bring out the synthetic sideburns again.
Glad they're doing things like that, but seriously? Age segregation?

I think it's a very good thing. You don't want 12 year old playing against middle aged dudes with a chip on their shoulder; it's a great way to make sure the 12 year old doesn't want to play again. Conversely, I don't want to play against random teenagers who may or may not be immature and annoying. Not saying they all are, but when I was playing in high school there were a good number of people who, even then, I'd rather not play against.

Another in an increasing list of good things going on with GW these days. Quite a change from the company even one year ago, hopefully they see that doing things customers are asking for will actually be beneficial for business!

 Pacific wrote:
While that would be nice I think it unlikely. Going on GW's history of 'engagement' with the community (which seems to mostly consist of suing it), they'll produce their own, which won't be as good, and demand that everyone switch to it.

And the vast majority will, despite it not being as good.

Come on, I know GW hate is fashionable, but this is pure revisionism. GW hasn't been responsive lately, but in the 80's and 90's it was very much engaged in the hobby. That is what made it so popular in the first place. They gave awards for conversions, scratchbuilding, painting, etc. that were featured in White Dwarf, etc.

In the 90s, it was mostly excerpts from army books and codexes. The battle reports were a lot better, I grant you.

As for official tournaments, the last one I can find details for included a pub quiz, and gaming results only made up a third of the overall tournament score. Sounds great to me, but possibly not to the rest of you.

I sincerely doubt this is going to be a move towards tournament play. GW has made it abundantly clear that they think tournament play is the antithesis of their design philosophy.

My guess is that this will just be more structure for narrative campaigns and such, as they're getting feedback from stores that it's tough to run these events without some kind of metric for judging how much strength people are bringing.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
I sincerely doubt this is going to be a move towards tournament play. GW has made it abundantly clear that they think tournament play is the antithesis of their design philosophy.

Then they've probably looked at the turnout that FFG, PP and Corvus Belli are getting for their events and the way those companies are growing when GW really aren't and had a rethink.

It's been said time and again, but a clear, concise, balanced rule set with regular revisions and updates based on player feedback hurts nobody. It's incredibly easy to disregard whole sections of the rules for narrative purposes, the reverse is much harder.

 Lorek wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Aaand again with the "Youngblood" crap. Time to bring out the synthetic sideburns again.
Glad they're doing things like that, but seriously? Age segregation?

I really don't have a problem with that. Having played 13 year olds in tournaments who lost their minds when a tank died, it doesn't upset me. Also, I don't think younger players are forced to play in the Youngblood events. It could also be that they play in the broader event, but have a different scoring metric (ie, came in 4th but 1st amongst the Youngbloods).

Having seen a 30 something have a snit-fit when he was beaten by a 13 year old, it goes both ways. (Worse, the 30 something was the TO and owner of the store where the game was being held.... There was no excuse for that kind of )

On the flip side - one of my favorite games was when I was soundly beaten in Mordheim by one of my students. (It was glorious - she got her goblin archers up into the gallery of a shattered church, and rained death down upon my Undead. She took every lesson that I had taught in the class, and used them all against me.)

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Lorek wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:
Aaand again with the "Youngblood" crap. Time to bring out the synthetic sideburns again.
Glad they're doing things like that, but seriously? Age segregation?

I really don't have a problem with that. Having played 13 year olds in tournaments who lost their minds when a tank died, it doesn't upset me. Also, I don't think younger players are forced to play in the Youngblood events. It could also be that they play in the broader event, but have a different scoring metric (ie, came in 4th but 1st amongst the Youngbloods).

Having seen a 30 something have a snit-fit when he was beaten by a 13 year old, it goes both ways. (Worse, the 30 something was the TO and owner of the store where the game was being held.... There was no excuse for that kind of )

On the flip side - one of my favorite games was when I was soundly beaten in Mordheim by one of my students. (It was glorious - she got her goblin archers up into the gallery of a shattered church, and rained death down upon my Undead. She took every lesson that I had taught in the class, and used them all against me.)

The Auld Grump

It's always satisfying when you teach someone something, and they not only take it on board, but have a lot of fun with it too. As you said, I think this whole age restriction thing works both ways, what's important is that kids are having fun with the hobby.

 Azreal13 wrote:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
I sincerely doubt this is going to be a move towards tournament play. GW has made it abundantly clear that they think tournament play is the antithesis of their design philosophy.

Then they've probably looked at the turnout that FFG, PP and Corvus Belli are getting for their events and the way those companies are growing when GW really aren't and had a rethink.

It's been said time and again, but a clear, concise, balanced rule set with regular revisions and updates based on player feedback hurts nobody. It's incredibly easy to disregard whole sections of the rules for narrative purposes, the reverse is much harder.

Yup, make a nice balanced ruleset a la 5th ed. (with a few of the better ideas from 6th and 7th) and I'll welcome it with open arms. Right now, with the rules GW is presenting us with all of this seems moot.