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.

coldgaming wrote:
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.

You know I haven't thought about the situation like that before and I think you have a good point. Certainly makes me feel a bit more optimism about the whole thing!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
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.

Of course each side having a fair chance is not impossible. But tacking on some point values is not what makes it possible; it was already possible with the existing rules and units. So points are supposed to do something more. They are supposed to ensure that any two lists of equivalent points have fair chance against each other. But they can't do that. Even if the game had been designed in a way that makes balancing it possible, you still need more than just a points mechanic. But of course the actual problem is the game is not designed to facilitate balance - quitethe opposite, in fact: the unit special rules are supposed to create exciting opportunities for lucky rolling.

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

Because you are having a hard time understanding that the problems with balancing AoS go deeper than units not being "correctly" costed out (when they simply can't be).

coldgaming wrote:
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.

A forum is always going to be a shade or two (or a dozen if I'm honest) more negative than IRL because internet conversation thrives on disagreement whereas IRL interaction thrives on cooperation. So yes we can take that into account. Look, the real (and very important) role that an official comp will play is making players feel more comfortable about list building for organized play. And that will sync very nicely into the very positive atmosphere that the best TOs foster for their events. Meanwhile, on the forums - the storms of X being overcosted or Y being undercosted will rage. And yet another tidal wave of cries that AoS is unbalanced garbage will smash into DakkaDakka ... all because these folks still don't get the game and are now even more confused and angry because points are supposed to balance things.

Oh shut up already Manchu, there's no need to be so negative. No one is expecting this to be perfect. I prefer 40K's flawed point system over AoS's non-existed one, so I think this will be fine.

What you prefer is irrelevant. The subject is not and has never been what any given person likes or dislikes.

Also - no one is forcing you to read the thread much less respond.

The point is that you're assuming that people are hoping the points to deliver something they can't. Most people here have played GW games with point systems before, we know roughly what level of balance to expect. And majority of people see this as good news. Besides, as has been said many times, this is just one option out of three.

 Manchu wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
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.

Of course each side having a fair chance is not impossible. But tacking on some point values is not what makes it possible; it was already possible with the existing rules and units. So points are supposed to do something more. They are supposed to ensure that any two lists of equivalent points have fair chance against each other. But they can't do that. Even if the game had been designed in a way that makes balancing it possible, you still need more than just a points mechanic. But of course the actual problem is the game is not designed to facilitate balance - quitethe opposite, in fact: the unit special rules are supposed to create exciting opportunities for lucky rolling.

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

Because you are having a hard time understanding that the problems with balancing AoS go deeper than units not being "correctly" costed out (when they simply can't be).

coldgaming wrote:
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.

A forum is always going to be a shade or two (or a dozen if I'm honest) more negative than IRL because internet conversation thrives on disagreement whereas IRL interaction thrives on cooperation. So yes we can take that into account. Look, the real (and very important) role that an official comp will play is making players feel more comfortable about list building for organized play. And that will sync very nicely into the very positive atmosphere that the best TOs foster for their events. Meanwhile, on the forums - the storms of X being overcosted or Y being undercosted will rage. And yet another tidal wave of cries that AoS is unbalanced garbage will smash into DakkaDakka ... all because these folks still don't get the game and are now even more confused and angry because points are supposed to balance things.

Well I suppose I'd rather be an optimist proven wrong then a pessimist proven right, and you don't seem willing to be convinced so I'll just put you on ignore and we can go our separate ways. I hate doing that but you really seem dead set on a negative outlook no matter what and I really want to enjoy discussions here rather than experiencing more of the same doom-and-gloom that I see so many other places.

 Crimson wrote:
you're assuming that people are hoping the points to deliver something they can't

That's right, I assume some people are expecting more out of points than points can deliver. Some of those people ("optimists") are posting ITT or over in N&R. As for "most people here" having reasonable expectations of how well a GW game will be balanced, once again look no further than the 40k subfora.

 Crimson wrote:
as has been said many times, this is just one option out of three

As has been said many times, an official comp system - even if it is a total mess (per 40k) - has the potential to shift the brand completely away from being open/narrative. You may have noticed, there's basically no discussion of open/narrative games of 40k around here ... or anywhere ... certainly not compared to what we're now calling "match play."

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
you don't seem willing to be convinced

Convinced of what point and by what argument? The question to hand is whether AoS can be balanced. I have stated that it cannot and given detailed support. This isn't a matter of being an optimist or a pessimist. In turn, you have ... threatened to put me on ignore? Because of my "negative outlook"? And yet in the very post you quoted:

 Manchu wrote:
Look, the real (and very important) role that an official comp will play is making players feel more comfortable about list building for organized play. And that will sync very nicely into the very positive atmosphere that the best TOs foster for their events.

Why even bother to put me on ignore when you have already been ignoring my actual points?

One of my worries is definitely that now that there are official points once again that the game shifts (again) completely away from the open/narrative.

 auticus wrote:
One of my worries is definitely that now that there are official points once again that the game shifts (again) completely away from the open/narrative.

I think part of the "three ways to play" is to emphasize that AoS can be played however you want. From my perspective it seems like GW did a heavy "you should play AoS THIS way" towards narrative at launch, but have realized since then that they failed to convince those players who simply didn't want to play that way. This new turn seems more like they have recognized that players are doing what they will with AoS and rather than double-down on their original approach GW has adapted to try providing content to a broader spectrum of the community instead of trying to build the whole game on just a specific section of it. Now whether or not the community continues the diverse approach we've seen or bandwagons onto a certain option is uncertain. Personally I think it will be the former because it's had a good amount of time to set in like that, but I can see your concern as a narrative player.

Yeah I totally agree with the premise that there are now these three options. I just worry that two of those three options are now false options, in that the vast bulk of people won't go down that road and you won't really get to do those anymore.

Kind of like when cityfight was introduced in 40k or planetstrike was introduced, or storm of magic for fantasy. I just had a very difficult time getting anyone to want to deviate from the standard core scenarios to do these other things because "it wasn't tournament standard".

Things may be different now who knows. I could definitely be wrong. Its just a worry nagging at me.

 auticus wrote:
One of my worries is definitely that now that there are official points once again that the game shifts (again) completely away from the open/narrative.

That worry is entirely justified. As you can see from how these discussions have gone, the preference for points is so incredibly strong that many posters have difficulty understanding that AoS doesn't actually need points.

 auticus wrote:
I just worry that two of those three options are now false options

One of those two is already a false option. There doesn't seem to be any meaningful mechanical difference between "open" and "narrative" play; or rather "open" play is really always "narrative" - you don't really need to come up with a series of linked scenarios to be playing the game primarily for the exciting combat (although a storyline will likely enhance the excitement).

 auticus wrote:
I just had a very difficult time getting anyone to want to deviate from the standard core scenarios to do these other things because "it wasn't tournament standard".

Imagine trying to get this kind of player to set aside points and just go for something based on what seems cool.

 Manchu wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
you're assuming that people are hoping the points to deliver something they can't

That's right, I assume some people are expecting more out of points than points can deliver. Some of those people ("optimists") are posting ITT or over in N&R. As for "most people here" having reasonable expectations of how well a GW game will be balanced, once again look no further than the 40k subfora.

The reason that 40k is such a mess is not because points can't deliever or due to 40k rules design philosophy. It is such a mess because of codieces and how GW refuses to alter point cost post print, not to mention they don't give the rat's ass in the first place, not putting enough work into it and changing their mind about their aproach every few months. Hell yes AoS should be better balanced with the warscrolls in place and tourney guys working on it, ofc you will hit the wall with both systems because of the design but 40k is far away from it.

Yes if GW wants to do it, they should do it right, what's so scary about people expecting some quality of work. Right doesn't mean perfect ofc just acceptable (read significantly better than 40k now), it is possible and not even that hard as you'd have to spoil it on purpose to make it as bad as 40k is atm.

Btw the "narrative" quirky rules providing swings on lucky rolls you mention all the time are actualy bad and cheap game design, even for narrative unless you go for comedy/ absurd, you can provide flavour without clown-out-of-the-box crazy effects. Not sure why would it be bad if those had to go at some point for the sake of balance.

Manchu wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
as has been said many times, this is just one option out of three

As has been said many times, an official comp system - even if it is a total mess (per 40k) - has the potential to shift the brand completely away from being open/narrative. You may have noticed, there's basically no discussion of open/narrative games of 40k around here ... or anywhere ... certainly not compared to what we're now calling "match play.

So much talking about how whfb didn't sell and is dead and deal with it. Guess what, open play narrative AoS probably sells even less and maybe it has to go too.

Still not sure why the styles can't coexist or what's the narrative players problem with it, what is there to loose for you if you are not going to play with points anyway and have established groups. If a new player comes because of points then he/ she wasn't going to play narrative anyway and if you loose existing players to the dark side then maybe it wasn't really that fun to begin with heh.

My hope is that once the 'points' do get released, is that this sub-forum remains as inspiring and positive as it has been.

I've seen a lot of great themed armies, ideas, stories and battle reports here. All encouraged by the ethos of what AoS aims to achieve.

What I foresee is a forum of people who weren't playing AoS until 'points' were introduced going "waaaaah, why is this one point more than this thing the Internet told me is undercosted, waaaaah", or "waaaah, why is this model expensive ($$$) but lower than I perceive to be the correct amount of points, waaah".

And the narrative games are slowly side-lined and the community support for that ethos dwindles. And the standard 'deathmatch' scenario everyone knows is the dullest then becomes the standard (see 40k). And then fething net-listing around those closed parameters.

coldgaming wrote:

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.

This is the one ray of light for me in this whole 'points' announcement. SCGT get it. Their point system is not intended to be ultra balanced. It is there to provide a framework for creative armies and fun battles (hence 'pools' and not 'points').

Ultra balanced helps narrative players when faced with competitive ones, not sure what you are on about.

coldgaming wrote:
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.

The cynic in me thinks that the process at GWHQ was more like AoS is failing everywhere except for the events these guys are running.

We were very very very wrong dismissing organised play as a community vertebrator and we can't lose any more time so we'll just take them on board. They've done this for free so far after all.

It doesn't matter who assigns the points to units and options in AoS because the units and options themselves do not provide a basis for balance. Please take another look at this thread for more detailed explanation of why; I am not going to type it out again tonight.

Appealing to some supposed expert "who gives damn" and who will magically "get the points right" is a perfect example of the unrealistic expectations I have been talking about. The best anyone is going to get out of any comp system is whatever comfort points currently provide 40k players - along with all the same headaches (including the headaches with 40k tourney comp). Just as is currently the case with 40k, some players will never really care at all that the whole thing is a mess. This is probably the best attitude. And there will be plenty of people who conclude that AoS wrapped up in points is a pitiful joke, the same way plenty of people currently regard 40k.

The argument ... well no ... the assumption that GW is forced to adopt a points-based comp because AoS sells poorly is pure nonsense motivated by sloppy, spiteful thinking. WHFB had points and - applying the same sort of assumption - points did not save it. If you can understand how simplistic the latter assumption is, you should be able to see that the former one is exactly as simplistic.

I think it is far more likely that GW sees "three ways to play" as means to support (and more importantly manage) organized play. I am hoping the official comp system is very "light touch" - and I know full well that this will not only fail to satisfy the people who want points the most but also make them hate AoS even more. But I suspect that what they really hate is the fact that AoS is not suitable for "balancing" in the first place.

I would rather that the same players who currently hate AoS keep on hating it than have something like this happen:

 ShaneTB wrote:
And the standard 'deathmatch' scenario everyone knows is the dullest then becomes the standard (see 40k). And then fething net-listing around those closed parameters.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Ultra balanced helps narrative players when faced with competitive ones, not sure what you are on about.

I think you have your wires crossed. "Narrative player" is not a synonym for a casual (as opposed to competitive) player looking for a pick-up game.

How can a scenario that everyone knows is the dullest become standard. No logic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Narrative player doesn't buy the most efficient options, the more balanced the system the better his chances against competitive player and ir's easier to bridge the gap between playstyles, wider community etc.

If said player plays a narrative game, ultra balanced point system has exactly zero impact on him.

Why is this "narrative player" cruising for a pick-up game in the first place?

Answer: because that's all he can find now that there's an official points system.



Auticus - this is the future you fear!

 Manchu wrote:
It doesn't matter who assigns the points to units and options in AoS because the units and options themselves do not provide a basis for balance. Please take another look at this thread for more detailed explanation of why; I am not going to type it out again tonight.

I saw it but don't buy it. You can provide limits, faq special rules, adjust cost.

It's nothing more than your opinion.

This is probably the best attitude. And there will be plenty of people who conclude that AoS wrapped up in points is a pitiful joke, the same way plenty of people currently regard 40k.

Probably the same people who consder it a pitiful joke now. There's close to nothing to loose.

The argument ... well no ... the assumption that GW is forced to adopt a points-based comp because AoS sells poorly is pure nonsense motivated by sloppy, spiteful thinking. WHFB had points and - applying the same sort of assumption - points did not save it. If you can understand how simplistic the latter assumption is, you should be able to see that the former one is exactly as simplistic.

I think it is far more likely that GW sees "three ways to play" as means to support (and more importantly manage) organized play. I am hoping the official comp system is very "light touch" - and I know full well that this will not only fail to satisfy the people who want points the most but also make them hate AoS even more. But I suspect that what they really hate is the fact that AoS is not suitable for "balancing" in the first place.

I said maybe. Stull, assuming that whfb had points and sold better, no it's not pure nonsense especially that you don't know GWs initial expectations. Maybe it went from "it will sell like 40k and space marines" to "let's make it at least whfb level".

I think GW wants to be cool back tbh lol.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
It's nothing more than your opinion.

But seriously, no. A reasoned argument is not the same thing as an opinion. You can go back and engage with the actual argument, or not - doesn't matter to me. Just keep in mind, if you bother to make a counterargument and it amounts to "hey someone could substantially redesign AoS so that it was balanced" ... then you end up actually supporting my original point.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
There's close to nothing to loose.

Assuming adding points does not "let the genie out of the bottle" in the sense of contaminating the brand, in the way that auticus and others have described.

You don't even need a redesign to provide acceptable level of balance, far above what is in 40k now for example. Just faqs, limits and an ongoing ballancing effort using feedback and tourney data.

 Manchu wrote:
Why is this "narrative player" cruising for a pick-up game in the first place?

Answer: because that's all he can find now that there's an official points system.



Auticus - this is the future you fear!

Then the narrative player is either:

1 - living in a country where FLGS PUG is the established culture, unlike garage/gaming club culture (in this case it sucks to be him);

2 - agreeing to play a game with a friend that doesn't like narrative gaming much, which is just fine;

3 - not really bothering to go to a gaming club or looking for likeminded players - in which case he is both lazy and conformist.

4 - the great evil overlords of tournament playing have taken over the world and he is being led in chains to play against a complete stranger in an arena, where throngs of rabid onlookers cheer on. He will be forced to play with someone else's army, a min maxed list. The loser will be branded a noob.
If he does not do this, he will be flogged by the local Commisar, then dismembered and hung until dead!

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
being led in chains

The chains are in their minds.

I think it's important for people to know that are tight competition games in which points work, for example WRG Ancients or Field of Glory, and these have a very different design philosophy to 40K, WHFB or AoS.

The most important thing is what Manchu emphasised, these games are built from the ground up as competitive tournament rules. Points balance and fairness in stand-up pitched battles was a key design principle at the start. (This does not prevent players from using the rules for pick up and narrative games, though.)

While there is a huge number of potential variations and combinations of troop types, training, formations, weapons and armour, all costed, when you choose an army for a game you are bound by the restrictions of the relevant army list for the types and proportions of troops, and their usual equipment, that you can choose. For an easy example, Old Kingdom Egyptian armies do not have any cavalry options because horses hadn't been domesticated in 2,500 BC.

The next thing is that there are only a few special rules and they are all in the main rulebook.

Finally, the publishers issue all the rules in a single book, and don’t change them with supplements. The army lists books all conform to the original design principles and therefore fit properly into the system, whenever they are published.

These factors mean that the rules as a whole support a massive amount of variations. There are 300 or more army lists for WRG and FoG, all with options. Players aren't allowed to make up new combinations of their own, though, and this makes it difficult to find exploits.

All these things support a stable tournament ruleset in which contemporaneous armies are generally well balanced against each other, and non-contemporaneous armies are usually not badly balanced.

If player want to play narrative campaigns, mix and match units from different armies AoS style, or even invent new types of units, of course they can. For example in the fantasy rules for WRG, a Dragon is an elephant with flying (ignores terrain) and a fire syphon.

GW’s design philosophy is completely different. Their main purpose to launch a new unit or book every couple of weeks, with new items and special rules that change the game. The core game tells you how to do magic, movement and combat, then refers you to the war scrolls and option books to follow the rules there. This is brilliant for launching new models, but they are being retro-fitted on to a basic scheme that is open ended and uncosted.

I don't see why points in AoS should drive out narrative play. In GW terms, narrative play seems to mean buying a campaign book and playing the scenarios. That's not going to work at tournaments, but it's ideal for club play.

I don't really think adding the options to play by SCGT point will change anything on the spirit of AOS.

I'm thinking most of the gamers that will be interested in this will be looking at things exactly like I am looking at it.

That is to say "I can now actually make a fluffy X or Y list and know roughly how much it costs, and arrange with my friends to do the same. We'll randomize a scenario and play it out, for the lulz"

 Manchu wrote:
What you prefer is irrelevant. The subject is not and has never been what any given person likes or dislikes.

Also - no one is forcing you to read the thread much less respond.

He's still right. Anything that helps making more easily closer to equal is by definition to system that doesn't do anything at all.

Even little improvement is better than nothing.

And clearly GW's previous style was failing as they changed things. Guess AOS sales were even worse than I thought since they changed course in 9 months. Which no company does without very big reason. Never mind advance warnings for investors despite having had big sellers in 40k...

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
being led in chains

The chains are in their minds.

It can go both ways, though. As does despair.

I think there's way too much of a pessimistic look from a couple of people based on very personal views and opinions. Which is fine, mind you - I was, and still am, full of bile over the Old World going kablooey. However I do feel like a very few, very personal fears are tainting view points and painting what is overall a rather positive move from GW as the beginning of the end of their gaming group.

We need to remember that this change will not impact the spirit of AoS, and that is what drives the existing communities. Most of them will just shrug and carry on playing as they did before because they didn't care about points to begin with.

Also, it's long established that AoS is not and will never be serious tournament/competitive material (Bottle don't look at me that way.) Honestly I'd rather try a Ronin/Dragon Rampant/Lion Rampant tournament than an AoS one.

tneva82 wrote:
Anything that helps making more easily closer to equal is by definition to system that doesn't do anything at all.

This would be true only if AoS was PUG in need of fixing ... which it isn't. You might as well say, any change that adds cards to AoS is better than nothing. Cards? Why should there be cards? This isn't a card game. And it's not a PUG either.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
too much of a pessimistic look

Oh ho ho delicious irony! But - again - my contribution isn't driven by optimism or pessimism. AoS is what it is. You can put a saddle on it but that doesn't make it a horse. You can tack points on, that doesn't make it a PUG. I'll admit to pessimism on one front: adding points could poison the brand. But I hold out hope that GW's system will be such an afterthought that it won't even live up to the low standards of 40k.

I am confused how can points be less balanced then bring what ever you want do what ever you want?

Thats like playing monopoly with the rules vs place hotels where ever ya like.

Also monchu we get it you hate points and want to play what ya like, but at this point your trolling. This is the second topic that ever third post is you bashing the point system. Like it or not it is here to stay, take a hint from the old wfb people play 9th or what ever and get over it. You said you do not play PUG then stick to your random fairness or not and well move on to a different game stop trolling for those who do like it.

At the moment we can only speculate about GW's reason to put this forward.

The cynic and the optimist in me are fighting it out right now. The optimist says that this finally GW listening to their alienated player base's feedback and doing something proactive with them, while the cynic bastard mocks the optimist and merely points out that this means AoS is selling like crap and GW is trying to patch up some points to get the PUG culture players interested and buying more miniatures, while masking it as a selfless action meant to give the playerbase more options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I am confused how can points be less balanced then bring what ever you want do what ever you want?

Thats like playing monopoly with the rules vs place hotels where ever ya like.

It's not about balance, really. it's about these changes giving the idea that AoS will suddenly become perfectly balanced and pseudo-tournament material, therefore shifting the game from being the casual narrative game to a TFG infested feth fest and shafting the current playerbase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
too much of a pessimistic look

Oh ho ho delicious irony! But - again - my contribution isn't driven by optimism or pessimism. AoS is what it is. You can put a saddle on it but that doesn't make it a horse. You tack points on, that doesn't make it a PUG. I'll admit to pessimism on one front: adding points could poison the brand. But I hold out hope that GW's system will be such an afterthought that it won't even live up to the low standards of 40k.

I am not pointing you out at all Manchu. And do keep the barbs off the conversation as they are clearly unnecessary.