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.

Not a bad point in a way but we're in no danger of seeing million dollar purses offered for best dice throwing in a GW game. What is meant by serious is not whether people have a passion for the game. People are obviously serious about AoS in that regard even without huge prizes on the line. I think the word "serious" is becoming a hobgoblin here. The key concept is skill versus luck. Competitive players do everything they can to minimize variables they cannot control, including any randomization mechanic in a game. The trouble with AoS in this regard is that luck is a huge part of it and can't be minimized.

Now to answer an earlier question - why would AoS not be a good PUG/tournament game while 40k is? Simply put, 40k is not a good PUG/tournament game. But I will admit that even despite that fact, 40k has a strong market presence as a PUG/tournament game. For whatever reason, 40k as a brand is very resilient in the face of a steady decline in the competitive capacity of its rules (in the sense of the paragraph above) - but in anycase, seeing WHFB is gone now and was seemingly not very popular until End Times, I don't think a Fantasy line necessarily has the same mysterious resilience.

 Manchu wrote:
The trouble with AoS in this regard is that luck is a huge part of it and can't be minimized.

More so, apart the quantity of luck involved, it is the "type of luck" that is also important. AoS has the kind of luck that will bring you cinematic moments - this is the type of luck laid back, narrative players seek (like the exalted champion's ability which give you the opportunity to stab to death an enemy hero via consecutive 50% events).

Yes that's correct and we discussed it a bit in the N&R thread concerning the question of how one can tell AoS was not designed for balanced play.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The trouble with AoS in this regard is that luck is a huge part of it and can't be minimized.

More so, apart the quantity of luck involved, it is the "type of luck" that is also important. AoS has the kind of luck that will bring you cinematic moments - this is the type of luck laid back, narrative players seek (like the exalted champion's ability which give you the opportunity to stab to death an enemy hero via consecutive 50% events).

Well put and absolutely correct.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone benefits from balance built in from the core, even if points are never released, because it lets designers make new units that aren't going to be stupidly good (Eldar Scat Bikes) or stupidly bad (Vespids.)

I am sure that everyone realises there is no fun in playing with units that are auto-win or auto-lose.

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.

There is NOTHING wrong with Eldar Scatterlaser Bikes, nor Vespids; the fact that you call them out reveals a bias toward assuming a very particular play style. If Eldar Scatterlaser Jebikes were 100 pts each, and Vesipds were 5 pts per 20 models... But that's the problem with "points."

I'm pretty sure there aren't any auto-win units in 40k or AoS, although AoS does have the rare auto-lose if you play Settra and are fool enough to touch your knee to the floor...

The chrome in AoS suggests that it won't be costable. The Special Rules are awful and they don't scale properly.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


There is NOTHING wrong with Eldar Scatterlaser Bikes, nor Vespids; the fact that you call them out reveals a bias toward assuming a very particular play style. If Eldar Scatterlaser Jebikes were 100 pts each, and Vesipds were 5 pts per 20 models... But that's the problem with "points."
.

No, in this case it's a problem with a poorly implemented points system, coupled with an open ended approach (meaning a lack of restrictions and structure).

A game designed with what we've been calling "balance at its core" can be fixed by points adjustments and force orgs. But if the game is not designed around incremental modifiers, then no amount of revision is going to result in less arbitrary points.

I suspect that the Eldar bikes are going to be more fairly costed in 40k than many AoS Character / Monster / Horde units will be in AoS. I think the AoS points thing is going to be an amusing disaster.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think the AoS points thing is going to be an amusing disaster.

Just as a matter of reason, I think GW's motivation is (a) make organized play easier and (b) assert some control over organized play (in terms of what units are used, ad therefore purchased). I don't think the move is meant to convince anyone who (a) understands that AoS is all about dramatic swingy special rules and (b) doesn't like that to suddenly change their minds. But of course there will be more than a few unwary gamers who come to points-laden AoS expecting a balanced test of skill and end up on here posting about how AoS is the worst game ever made and, yes, in that sense the points thing will be an amusing disaster, except it's not super amusing to those of us who get irritated by people complaining about what AoS isn't rather than even making the first attempt to understand what it is.

FWIW me and my buds play pick-up games of AoS every week using points to balance. We have loads of fun.

 Manchu wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think the AoS points thing is going to be an amusing disaster.

But of course there will be more than a few unwary gamers who come to points-laden AoS expecting a balanced test of skill and end up on here posting about how AoS is the worst game ever made and, yes, in that sense the points thing will be an amusing disaster, except it's not super amusing to those of us who get irritated by people complaining about what AoS isn't rather than even making the first attempt to understand what it is.

Agreed. GW's actual response is going to be along these lines:

"You want points? Fine, here's your fething points. Now feth off."

Points implies a certain level of precision that simply won't be present. People expecting "balance" are going to be very sorely disappointed.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
FWIW me and my buds play pick-up games of AoS every week using points to balance. We have loads of fun.

Leaving this here as a blanket qualifier to anything I post ever after - I never intend to argue that there is no one who can find X fun, whatever X is.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
People expecting "balance" are going to be very sorely disappointed.

The weird thing? This is already how 40k works. Another great thing about AoS is that by not having official points at all it was impossible to implicate it in the kind of mess 40k is in ... but now ...

 Manchu wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
FWIW me and my buds play pick-up games of AoS every week using points to balance. We have loads of fun.

Leaving this here as a blanket qualifier to anything I post ever after - I never intend to argue that there is no one who can find X fun, whatever X is.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
People expecting "balance" are going to be very sorely disappointed.

The weird thing? This is already how 40k works. Another great thing about AoS is that by not having official points at all it was impossible to implicate it in the kind of mess 40k is in ... but now ...

That's certainly the worry.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone benefits from balance built in from the core, even if points are never released, because it lets designers make new units that aren't going to be stupidly good (Eldar Scat Bikes) or stupidly bad (Vespids.)

I am sure that everyone realises there is no fun in playing with units that are auto-win or auto-lose.

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.

There is NOTHING wrong with Eldar Scatterlaser Bikes, nor Vespids; the fact that you call them out reveals a bias toward assuming a very particular play style. If Eldar Scatterlaser Jebikes were 100 pts each, and Vesipds were 5 pts per 20 models... But that's the problem with "points."

I'm pretty sure there aren't any auto-win units in 40k or AoS, although AoS does have the rare auto-lose if you play Settra and are fool enough to touch your knee to the floor...

The chrome in AoS suggests that it won't be costable. The Special Rules are awful and they don't scale properly.

Okay, Space Pope then.

I am sure there are many examples of units that are under or over-costed for their effectiveness, so the basic point is valid.

I doubt you are going to argue that 40K is Best Balanced Game Ever.

In a 'perfect' points system, nothing is inefficient. It's kinda the whole point of the endeavour. X of army Y only differs from X of army Z based on player skill.

I cannot think of a single.game where this has ever been achieved.
Even WMH, lauded for it's competitive balance, is having swathes of stuff changed. Why? Because people weren't taking them, which is PR speak for not buying them.
The more detailed a points system is, the more apparent the flaws in it are, the more units become auto-includes or never-includes.

I'm worried because this fanfare is going to create unrealistic expectations of the eventual system we get.
I hadn't looked at the SCGT system until this announcement, and I have to say I like the fact it's quite rough.
But some will expect perfection, and rage against it when it isn't. If GW are doing this as a reactionary measure (although I suspected the same as Alpharius - let the community come up with one then option it) then in PR terms I'm not sure which is the worse option; soldiering on without, or trying and not meeting expectations. Especially on a system that as Manchu has pointed out, isn't rigorous enough to be considered a match of skill.
For me.personally, the ideal solution would be the open format is the intro for new arrivals, the matched play draws in people from other systems, and everyone meets in the middle with narrative play.
Time will tell.

As for serious tournament ruleset, 40k is not written as one but is treated very seriously by many. Take football (the real one), how random it is with injuries, player form, referee mistakes and simply situational luck but it's enough to look at billions involved, cases like referee stabbed to death in Brazil during the match (and his head put on a stake then) or Colombian player killed because of the own goal to see how serious business it is now.

So I'd say it depends greatly on players perspective, sure AoS has a much lower skill ceiling compared to rulesets designed for competitive play (where football for example has randomness mitigated a lot by individual and collective player skill) but quite frankly with the sheer number of units and combinations avilable it will take some time before it enters the picture. The amount and attendance of tournaments and attitude of the players will decide its seriousness, imo.

As already mentioned "seriousness" is probably a red herring.

Manchu wrote: But of course there will be more than a few unwary gamers who come to points-laden AoS expecting a balanced test of skill and end up on here posting about how AoS is the worst game ever made and, yes, in that sense the points thing will be an amusing disaster, except it's not super amusing to those of us who get irritated by people complaining about what AoS isn't rather than even making the first attempt to understand what it is.

Define what it 'is' and what it's 'meant to be' then? Because it seems to me that gw can and will change both, and will change direction rapidly if it means more players and more money for them. After all, they turned their backs on one devoted group of fans already. History repeats.

And You know, it's swell that you are chuffed to bits to be chuckling away at your peers because they're apparently not Kewl enough or elitist enough to join your awesome club of 'true Aos believers' and aren't playing Aos the 'right way' (according to Manchu) instead of the way they want to play their wargames (amusing disaster? Really?)

Real swell. And I here I was thinking that Aos players were supposed to be paragons of this gentlemanly art of conciliation, co-operation and decency.

RoperPG wrote:In a 'perfect' points system, nothing is inefficient. It's kinda the whole point of the endeavour. X of army Y only differs from X of army Z based on player skill.
I cannot think of a single.game where this has ever been achieved.
Even WMH, lauded for it's competitive balance, is having swathes of stuff changed. Why? Because people weren't taking them, which is PR speak for not buying them.
The more detailed a points system is, the more apparent the flaws in it are, the more units become auto-includes or never-includes.

And yet for most people, what they're looking for is 'good enough' balance. WMH is pretty solid in terms of balance (points are generally OK, and the steamroller format goes a long way towards acting as a 'shock absorber' for those odds and ends thst could otherwise ruin it). It's getting updated for a variety of reasons, including six years of growth in the game and a swathe of new unit types thst aren't covered in the 'core' rules from mk2's launch. True, six years of playtesting and feedback has also gone into this with where they've gone wrong, and where they missed the mark. But hey, that's part of these evolving games - they need to be constantly monitored and tweaked and it seems pp are going that route.

As to why people weren't taking things - part of it is balance reasons, but the other half is 'lazy gamers' and scrubs who fix on netlists as crutch and never bother trying to 'git good' or be creative and explore the game or expand their abilities and experiences beyond 'hey, this lists works because of Internet. I don't need to spend any more now'.

And funnily enough, I'd go the opposite way in terms of points systems - there is a thing as 'too much granularity'. Less is more sometimes. Not everything needs to be micro-costed into a hyper detailed formula to get things to work. I enjoyed mk2s minimalist approach to points far more than mk1s 40k-esque points costings and felt it got a lot more work done. Mk3 seems to be opening it up a bit. But still leaning towards 'less granularity'. I'm happy with this.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone benefits from balance built in from the core, even if points are never released, because it lets designers make new units that aren't going to be stupidly good (Eldar Scat Bikes) or stupidly bad (Vespids.)

I am sure that everyone realises there is no fun in playing with units that are auto-win or auto-lose.

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.

There is NOTHING wrong with Eldar Scatterlaser Bikes, nor Vespids; the fact that you call them out reveals a bias toward assuming a very particular play style. If Eldar Scatterlaser Jebikes were 100 pts each, and Vesipds were 5 pts per 20 models... But that's the problem with "points."

I'm pretty sure there aren't any auto-win units in 40k or AoS, although AoS does have the rare auto-lose if you play Settra and are fool enough to touch your knee to the floor...

The chrome in AoS suggests that it won't be costable. The Special Rules are awful and they don't scale properly.

Okay, Space Pope then.

I am sure there are many examples of units that are under or over-costed for their effectiveness, so the basic point is valid.

I doubt you are going to argue that 40K is Best Balanced Game Ever.

ALL units are under- or over-costed, aside from whatever single unit is used to define the points baseline. Costing things is largely a fool's errand once the complexity increases beyond handsfuls of variances.

40k is "fun", but far from balanced; however, it is not obviously worse than how "balanced" WMH actually is, compared to how the WMH players claim it is.

Deadnight wrote:

Spoiler:

Manchu wrote: But of course there will be more than a few unwary gamers who come to points-laden AoS expecting a balanced test of skill and end up on here posting about how AoS is the worst game ever made and, yes, in that sense the points thing will be an amusing disaster, except it's not super amusing to those of us who get irritated by people complaining about what AoS isn't rather than even making the first attempt to understand what it is.

Define what it 'is' and what it's 'meant to be' then? Because it seems to me that gw can and will change both, and will change direction rapidly if it means more players and more money for them. After all, they turned their backs on one devoted group of fans already. History repeats.

And You know, it's swell that you are chuffed to bits to be chuckling away at your peers because they're apparently not Kewl enough or elitist enough to join your awesome club of 'true Aos believers' and aren't playing Aos the 'right way' (according to Manchu) instead of the way they want to play their wargames (amusing disaster? Really?)

Real swell. And I here I was thinking that Aos players were supposed to be paragons of this gentlemanly art of conciliation, co-operation and decency.

RoperPG wrote:In a 'perfect' points system, nothing is inefficient. It's kinda the whole point of the endeavour. X of army Y only differs from X of army Z based on player skill.
I cannot think of a single.game where this has ever been achieved.
Even WMH, lauded for it's competitive balance, is having swathes of stuff changed. Why? Because people weren't taking them, which is PR speak for not buying them.
The more detailed a points system is, the more apparent the flaws in it are, the more units become auto-includes or never-includes.

And yet for most people, what they're looking for is 'good enough' balance. WMH is pretty solid in terms of balance (points are generally OK, and the steamroller format goes a long way towards acting as a 'shock absorber' for those odds and ends thst could otherwise ruin it). It's getting updated for a variety of reasons, including six years of growth in the game and a swathe of new unit types thst aren't covered in the 'core' rules from mk2's launch. True, six years of playtesting and feedback has also gone into this with where they've gone wrong, and where they missed the mark. But hey, that's part of these evolving games - they need to be constantly monitored and tweaked and it seems pp are going that route.

As to why people weren't taking things - part of it is balance reasons, but the other half is 'lazy gamers' and scrubs who fix on netlists as crutch and never bother trying to 'git good' or be creative and explore the game or expand their abilities and experiences beyond 'hey, this lists works because of Internet. I don't need to spend any more now'.

And funnily enough, I'd go the opposite way in terms of points systems - there is a thing as 'too much granularity'. Less is more sometimes. Not everything needs to be micro-costed into a hyper detailed formula to get things to work. I enjoyed mk2s minimalist approach to points far more than mk1s 40k-esque points costings and felt it got a lot more work done. Mk3 seems to be opening it up a bit. But still leaning towards 'less granularity'. I'm happy with this.

Sorry, I wasn't stating that the aim of competitive balance was bad or that WMH was poor - it's just the only example I'm familiar with that demonstrated my point.
People expect more from GW - even the 'haterz'. You only have to look at what people thought 9th edition could/should have been to see that with this points system GW could be making a problem worse. I really hope they don't.

RoperPG wrote:
You only have to look at what people thought 9th edition could/should have been to see that with this points system GW could be making a problem worse. I really hope they don't.

Ninth Age, perhaps? It's been under trial by fire with the ETC crowd.

@Deadnight

Don't worry, you need not be elite in any sense, much less Kewl, to appreciate these simple points. A game is the result of its design. Designs exist to achieve goals. The goal of AoS is not to create balance. Nothing about the design of AoS is aimed at achieving that. Instead, the design fosters swingy special rules that create dramatic results on lucky rolls. This feature actually cuts deeply against the basic notion of balance.

You might give the thread (and a couple others) a re-read, as a number of posters go into this. Also - you have misunderstood the "amusing disaster" reference - it is not a denigration of how anyone likes to play but rather a reference to the result of a player looking for a game of skill being disappointed by AoS "dressed up" in points. And for my part, I explained why that would not amuse me.

Exactly. I see this whole AoS "points" thing as a train wreck in slow motion. It's going to be a disaster, and I'm going to be very amused when people say the points aren't right. Because they can't be right when nearly everything about AoS works against "proper" points.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
You only have to look at what people thought 9th edition could/should have been to see that with this points system GW could be making a problem worse. I really hope they don't.

Ninth Age, perhaps? It's been under trial by fire with the ETC crowd.

This is just it. GW could have released a carbon copy of 9th age and it would still be fruit of the poisoned tree.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Everyone benefits from balance built in from the core, even if points are never released, because it lets designers make new units that aren't going to be stupidly good (Eldar Scat Bikes) or stupidly bad (Vespids.)

I am sure that everyone realises there is no fun in playing with units that are auto-win or auto-lose.

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.

There is NOTHING wrong with Eldar Scatterlaser Bikes, nor Vespids; the fact that you call them out reveals a bias toward assuming a very particular play style. If Eldar Scatterlaser Jebikes were 100 pts each, and Vesipds were 5 pts per 20 models... But that's the problem with "points."

I'm pretty sure there aren't any auto-win units in 40k or AoS, although AoS does have the rare auto-lose if you play Settra and are fool enough to touch your knee to the floor...

The chrome in AoS suggests that it won't be costable. The Special Rules are awful and they don't scale properly.

Okay, Space Pope then.

I am sure there are many examples of units that are under or over-costed for their effectiveness, so the basic point is valid.

I doubt you are going to argue that 40K is Best Balanced Game Ever.

ALL units are under- or over-costed, aside from whatever single unit is used to define the points baseline. Costing things is largely a fool's errand once the complexity increases beyond handsfuls of variances.

40k is "fun", but far from balanced; however, it is not obviously worse than how "balanced" WMH actually is, compared to how the WMH players claim it is.

I've never had the slightest interest in WHM so it's irrelevant how point-tastic it might or might not be.

The point of raising WMH is that it's adherents claim it to be the best balanced system out there, and this is very probably true, given that competitive balance is a key objective of the game. That said, it's not perfect - there are a number of units and combinations within each faction which are flat out non-competitive. What WMH has is above average external competitive balance among factions, and this is what most WMH players like to talk up. However, WMH still suffers from the typical lack of internal balance within factions, and this is the dirty secret that WMH players willfully ignore. And still, WMH is probably close to a "best case" example of point balance for PUG / competitive play.

AoS declaimed the entire thing, but now they're being dragged back, for whatever reason.

Whole lot of rage about GW giving customers what they asked for.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Whole lot of rage about GW giving customers what they asked for.

It's a little more complex. So presumably you're saying customers want points. Okay - you get points. But now you look at the points you get, and you wonder ... why did I want these points again? Did I just want to play around writing lists even though these points aren't creating balanced lists? Did I just want to want to complain about these points being wrong on a forum somewhere? Did I want a game where each side has a fair chance of winning because each side has the same number of points? I mean, if it's that last one - this is the one that is going to let you down for all the reasons we have been discussing. Unless your idea of a "fair chance" is really, really approximate - in which case, you didn't need points in the first place. If you want to see the future of AoS with points, by all means take a look at the YMDC and Proposed Rules subfora for 40k.

The worst part is, I can tell some posters are really setting themselves up here - they are honestly expecting these points to be released and the clouds will part and the angels will sing and it will be everything they always wanted. Again, see the 40k boards. That's your promised land.

Well if I was playing with wounds-count or just eyeballing two forces then I'd be pretty happy with the balance offered by even a sub-par points system. Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it automatically sucks or isn't better than nothing, and even if what they produce really is that bad then not much will change. People who try AoS because of points weren't playing it anyway, people who are playing AoS now will just keep doing what they are doing if they don't like the new option as much. On the optimistic side, the AoS I play has two sides with a fair chance of winning because they both have the same number of points so it can't be impossible.

I am just really having a hard time imagining how GW listening to customers can end up as a bad thing here.

 Manchu wrote:

The worst part is, I can tell some posters are really setting themselves up here - they are honestly expecting these points to be released and the clouds will part and the angels will sing and it will be everything they always wanted. Again, see the 40k boards. That's your promised land.

I'm completely on board with the problems of points, and I love AoS for the direction it took.

Part of the point of AoS was to open up the choices for gamers, and one choice a lot of people like, me too, is to have an established kind of baseline for setting up "pickup" games. I don't need or want points in the rulebook, but I like that the community came up with its own way to set up games (including widely accepted changes to the rules like base measuring).

I think what some people aren't realizing is that the SCGT guys have been the beacon of positivity and support for AoS and everything it's about since it came out. They are not just some tournament players who came up with a comp. Heelanhammer is a major part of why AoS gained momentum and support. They are all for the things the game promotes. The system they came up with is not meant to be an objective set-in-stone ultimate balancing mechanism. It was simply a mechanism for setting up tournaments or event days, always open to editing, changes, theming, etc.

I'm optimistic because all signs I've seen point to GW liking the SCGT crew not because they came up with points, but because they embody the spirit of AoS (which allowing the community to be in charge of themselves is a big part of) and took the game to new levels. I sincerely don't think either GW or SCGT are trying to bring the game back to past editions or 40k it. From the announcement, I think they are also going to put in resources into the narrative aspect.

Now, it could be true in the end that as soon as any kind of points are established, that's all anyone cares about, and the whole forum becomes what the 40k forum is. But I think some of the fears of that are coming from the headline news of points and not what the people in charge are actually directing toward. Of course, intentions don't always equal reality.

Either way, I love Warhammer, and I know that lots of people love Warhammer too. I was all in favour of the type of game AoS promoted, but it wasn't for everyone. In the end, I'd rather have a big tent and get all the other people who like Warhammer but maybe don't like playing the exact same way as me inside.