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.
It's not really so trolly down here so, whatcha 'all think?
Admire your optimism, but there's already 3 names I know I'll see in here before the end of the day...
I'd be disappointed if one of those three isn't me.
Should I punch the card as well? xD
Sorry to disappoint both of you, but no. We may disagree on just about everything, but you can back up your opinions *and* you're prepared to discuss them.
You're exceptionally poor trolls, I'm afraid! (Don't take that as a challenge, by the way)
It's not really so trolly down here so, whatcha 'all think?
Admire your optimism, but there's already 3 names I know I'll see in here before the end of the day...
I'd be disappointed if one of those three isn't me.
Should I punch the card as well? xD
Quite certain I'm the third lol.
We need a campy name. Three pointsketeers. The hate trinity. TroubleTriplets. Foaming at the mout trio. Sth.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: you can have a community enjoying a balanced game without the TFG/Tournament mindset kicking in
True and shouldn't even be in dispute. Anyone who doubts this, please take a look at the Great British Hobbit League tournament scene, which reportedly has a very high ratio of fluffy armies. That said ... the current iteration of SBG has been carefully calibrated over successive versions to create a more and more balanced game, even despite being initially marketed for scenario play rather than as a PUG. But that is a design that, in KK's words above, entailed "balance built in from the core" ... unlike AoS.
True and managing these expectations is the conundrum of GW's latest action, which is what leads me to believe that will be no further "official" push for tournament-style playing.
In the end I believe that the players who really want a "truly" tournament style skirmish battle will still go to other games - this will only help AoS PUG's. I personally think there's a lot of overreacting over this. The AoS playstyle is now firmly ingrained into the mindset of the playing communities and I don't really think the tournament style will change any minds that weren't already predisposed towards it and were already using comps to begin with.
The problem I have with tacking on a points system is that it creates a false impression that suddenly AoS will be fine for pick-up gaming when it will actually still suck for pick-up gaming, at least compared to a game actually designed for that.
It won't suck for pick up gaming more than 40k and most probably will suck significantly less, I don't think it is a problem at all.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
It's not really so trolly down here so, whatcha 'all think?
Admire your optimism, but there's already 3 names I know I'll see in here before the end of the day...
I'd be disappointed if one of those three isn't me.
Should I punch the card as well? xD
Sorry to disappoint both of you, but no. We may disagree on just about everything, but you can back up your opinions *and* you're prepared to discuss them.
You're exceptionally poor trolls, I'm afraid! (Don't take that as a challenge, by the way)
Now I need to know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The basic movement and combat of AoS is simple enough that the statline can easily be "costed". The key words and the special rules are what will cause problems, as with 40K.
Yes but it's perfectly doable, would only take a "living" point system and them working with feedback to work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: As soon as you start invoking "good" and "bad" in those terms, you're already assuming a PUG perspective. And even setting aside the tautological nature of arguing that balance is good because it's balanced, that's not even applicable here - because the goal of AoS is not PUG-style balance, which is completely evident from the design. Adding points on the back end of a design that does not care about balance does not suddenly transform the design into its opposite.
When you look at how stats work in AoS, you're not going to find a system that elegantly creates genuinely different options. KK, I believe you have even posted about this elsewhere. But the insight I draw from that observation is not that AoS should have been XYZ instead; rather I am more interested in why it is the way it is - and I'm not just going to dismiss the designers as stupid and/or lazy. I think the clunkiness of the statline system serves a purpose: even if units are mathematically very similar, what matters is that they feel different when you play them. In a more pure sense of gaming, there may actually be very little difference in some of the units, barring their crazy highly random/highly dramatic special rules, but as long as there is an illusion of difference that comes out while dice are being rolled, the system is pulling its weight.
It's not exclusive with balance (up to a point ofc but AoS is far from it).
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/04/26 09:29:52
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: you can have a community enjoying a balanced game without the TFG/Tournament mindset kicking in
True and shouldn't even be in dispute. Anyone who doubts this, please take a look at the Great British Hobbit League tournament scene, which reportedly has a very high ratio of fluffy armies. That said ... the current iteration of SBG has been carefully calibrated over successive versions to create a more and more balanced game, even despite being initially marketed for scenario play rather than as a PUG. But that is a design that, in KK's words above, entailed "balance built in from the core" ... unlike AoS.
I've read your posts both here and in the N&R thread, and I haven't quite decided if I agree or not. You definitely have a point though. What I would love to see is if you could be more specific in your arguments. You've written quite a lot about how AoS will never be a good pick-up game because it was not designed to work as a balanced game, but unless I'm mistaken, you haven't specified exactly why this is. Which parts of the AoS core design make it unsuitable for a points system and PUP, as compared to, say 40k or WHFB? Is it the synergies? The lack of army construction limits? Are they things that would necessitate a ground-up rework of the entire game or could you simply add features that are lacking? I myself tend to think that yes, it could probably be a good PUP game, but at the same time I agree with Kan and others that say that an official points system will pretty much kill the player base for "Open play" and narrative games. Those people aren't really in abundance in my group anyway (it's basically me and one other guy playing fluffy Inquisimunda stuff, inventing rules on the fly using the Rule of Cool), so I'll probably get more opponents at least.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/26 10:40:27
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it works fine as a pick up game if you aren't all that concerned about a really "fair" fight.
I don't think it will ever work as a serious tournament game, but 40K has always had problems in that respect too.
And I'm totally fine with that. I just want some system to relatively painlessly gauge roughly equal forces, and I think this new point system will achieve this. It doesn't need to be perfect in order to be better than the current situation.
And all those people not liking the points: don't use them.
SCGT was a competitive tournament in the traditional use of the term, and I've yet to see anything other than glowing praise for the event - not that there won't be any somewhere.
WW have been running what I would term 'gaming events', and these as well appear to have been well received.
AoS is not going to work as a 'serious' competitive game because it was never designed as one.
For example, I've seen situations in WMH where someone was able to move their opponent into a sequence of events where they were literally able to do nothing but watch and wait to lose. This is both a theoretical intent and an accepted application of the ruleset so whilst it's not necessarily a great experience people go in knowing it could happen.
It requires robust planning, precise sequencing and manoeuvring along with a bit of luck to pull off.
AoS, it's entirely possible for an average unit to gain the upper hand against a monster or elite unit once you step outside the vacuum of a one-on-one mathhammer exercise.
I would hazard a guess that the matched play pack - reading between the lines of the announcement - will be points with very low level restrictions. I'd guess same Alliance and limitations on some keywords rather than a more familiar core/spec/rare. A few rule tweaks (no rolling for initiative, natural 1's fail), and some capture the flag style scenarios.
A framework with a specified arena.
It's a game that can be played seriously (competitively) at tournaments where player skill is required to win. Not sure why that doesn't fit your 'serious' criteria but then I have pretty much disagreed with everything you and Manchu have had to say on this topic.
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
A lot of people consider a game "serious" when there are no random elements in the game or minimal random elements in the game and it is perceived that player skill is truly how you win.
Games like AOS the dice play a heavy role.
But thats also true in games like Blood Bowl, which a lot of people have said is a serious game.
Yep, it seems very arbitrary and subjective to label a game as unable to be a "serious" tournament game when successful tournaments are already being held with it.
Poker is a game with a lot of luck that has a big tournament scene too.
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
Bottle wrote: It's a game that can be played seriously (competitively) at tournaments where player skill is required to win. Not sure why that doesn't fit your 'serious' criteria but then I have pretty much disagreed with everything you and Manchu have had to say on this topic.
The heavier the part the dice and random things play, the less serious it is traditionally considered, as actual player skill comes into play less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bottle wrote: Yep, it seems very arbitrary and subjective to label a game as unable to be a "serious" tournament game when successful tournaments are already being held with it.
Poker is a game with a lot of luck that has a big tournament scene too.
Poker has tremendous amounts of player skill coupled with that luck, in the manner that a skilled manipulator can win with a crappy hand - I wouldn't thread those grounds in search of a comparison, to be honest.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/26 12:47:08
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
And a good list with good strategy and tactics can negate bad dice rolls to an extent too. So where do we draw the line as to what can be considered "serious" or not? Seems like a sliding scale with no real point where something because serious or not.
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
A game played at a tournament and a serious tournament game aren't the same thing.
AoS wasn't created as a serious tournament game. It's not a bad thing not to be serious. I don't see why you need to feel so defensive about ithe game.
I don't think it was created as a tournament game, fullstop. That's not to say you can't have tournaments with a little imagination and good attitudes but I doubt that tournaments were in the designers minds in the slightest.
I suspect that is what is meant by 'serious' really. A game that is designed foremost to be a competition of skill (even if that level of skill will often be vastly overrated).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/26 13:11:58
Dai wrote: I don't think it was created as a tournament game, fullstop. That's not to say you can't have tournaments with a little imagination and good attitudes but I doubt that tournaments were in the designers minds in the slightest.
I suspect that is what is meant by 'serious' really. A game that is designed foremost to be a competition of skill.
Exactly. And the more uncontrollable randomness a game has, the less weight a player's skill has, and the less "tournament-y" a game is.
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
Hey all I know is this has me EXCITED about a GW game, even to the point of debating if I'm playing the new edition of Warmachine (which is my primary game right now). Hell I've even started the old "Should I play 40k" gears a-turning once more.
This is a small step in the right direction, but nowhere whats needed for me to even consider coming back.
Other things not in any order that would need to change would be
1) Whats wrong with making a game and writing the rules in a book? I have no interest in a system with 100 rules in 100 different places like this mess!
2) Scrap measuring from the model and go back to measuring from the base, its ridiculous!
3) I HATE the new asthetics
4) Their prices have gotten even more ludicrous (I didnt even think that was possible!) with the exception of their bundles, a step in the right direction, but not a very big one.
Dai wrote: I don't think it was created as a tournament game, fullstop. That's not to say you can't have tournaments with a little imagination and good attitudes but I doubt that tournaments were in the designers minds in the slightest.
I suspect that is what is meant by 'serious' really. A game that is designed foremost to be a competition of skill.
Exactly. And the more uncontrollable randomness a game has, the less weight a player's skill has, and the less "tournament-y" a game is.
But it's a sliding scale surely - where do you draw the line at something being "good" or "bad" for tournaments that isn't some arbitrary line you've made up?
Furthermore what worth does it have to even discuss this? AoS with a comp pack can be used to play a fun tournament and where ultimately player skill is a big factor in winning (alongside luck) and can be used to have fun in pick-up-games too to provide a way to implement a strategy within the comp framework.
And yet since this news came out it feels like a select few posters are going out their way to tell us how terrible AoS with a comp is at doing this despite it already being successful and popular with the players as well as a well received decision from the community as a whole,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/26 13:34:53
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
Dai wrote: I don't think it was created as a tournament game, fullstop. That's not to say you can't have tournaments with a little imagination and good attitudes but I doubt that tournaments were in the designers minds in the slightest.
I suspect that is what is meant by 'serious' really. A game that is designed foremost to be a competition of skill.
Exactly. And the more uncontrollable randomness a game has, the less weight a player's skill has, and the less "tournament-y" a game is.
But it's a sliding scale surely - where do you draw the line at something being "good" or "bad" for tournaments that isn't some arbitrary line you've made up?
Furthermore what worth does it have to even discuss this? AoS with a comp pack can be used to play a fun tournament and where ultimately player skill is a big factor in winning (alongside luck) and can be used to have fun in pick-up-games too to provide a way to implement a strategy within the comp framework.
And yet since this news came out it feels like a select few posters are going out their way to tell us how terrible AoS with a comp is at doing this despite it already being successful and popular with the players as well as a well received decision from the community as a whole,
People will always have a right to voice their opinion on whatever subject, Bottle, regardless of what it may be. It's that simple, and I think it is only fair to address all opinions and discuss them on a public forum.
And I agree that it is a sliding scale, if you want to use a sliding scale to gauge it we can use Chess on one end of the spectrum and on the other end of the spectrum a game that relies 100% on chance. We'd just have to find a way to quantify the weight of a player's decisions vs the dice/whatever element the randomness embodies within an individual game.
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
Dai wrote: I don't think it was created as a tournament game, fullstop. That's not to say you can't have tournaments with a little imagination and good attitudes but I doubt that tournaments were in the designers minds in the slightest.
I suspect that is what is meant by 'serious' really. A game that is designed foremost to be a competition of skill.
Exactly. And the more uncontrollable randomness a game has, the less weight a player's skill has, and the less "tournament-y" a game is.
But it's a sliding scale surely - where do you draw the line at something being "good" or "bad" for tournaments that isn't some arbitrary line you've made up?
Furthermore what worth does it have to even discuss this? AoS with a comp pack can be used to play a fun tournament and where ultimately player skill is a big factor in winning (alongside luck) and can be used to have fun in pick-up-games too to provide a way to implement a strategy within the comp framework.
And yet since this news came out it feels like a select few posters are going out their way to tell us how terrible AoS with a comp is at doing this despite it already being successful and popular with the players as well as a well received decision from the community as a whole,
I didn't say good or bad, I said serious. You won't find Sandhurst Staff College using AoS rules for training and instruction. There are actual war games rules they do use (or did before computers took over.)
If AoS is "serious", how would you describe a game like Field of Glory or Kriegsspiel that contains so much more military tactical considerations of orders, morale, command and control, etc.? Hyper serious?
Every game can be played in serious tournaments. The rules or randomness don't matter, what matters is how much money you can make out of it, both for the contestants and organisation.
If I make an AoS tournament with 1 million dollar prize for the winner, I guarantee you it will be taken seriously. This is how esport work.
