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.

OgreChubbs wrote:
we get it you hate points

Great summary of exactly how you don't get it. Points are just a game mechanic. I like 'em fine, where they are appropriate. Both of my favorite miniatures games (Bolt Action and Middle-earth SBG) are well-balanced PUGs. I even enjoy list building. But the thing is, not every damn game needs to be a PUG, which many posters (yourself included) seem to assume.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
this means AoS is selling like crap and GW is trying to patch up some points to get the PUG culture players interested

Nah, the more likely cynical explanation is GW sees that players have organized themselves very successfully and they need to be involved with that.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
do keep the barbs off the conversation

Another case of toneless text - that was supposed to come off as good-natured ribbing after our long history of arguments concerning AoS! I should have added one of these guys:



An orrukmoticon.

Agreed with Manchu on the likely reason GW are doing it.

They said AoS was a framework. Community creates a tournament from it. GW take what they see as the best elements and rebrand as their own.

Also, GW aren't changing course here (in the sense of a complete direction change). This is one of three ways to play. And the one that'll see the least books/product. However, my pessimism is that it will change their customers' course.

I also agree that AoS was intentionally built from its very foundations to disregard the modern ideas of balance. It was going back to early GW days.
AoS is not about balance in the conventional sense being used. As such, adding points can be fine but it won't provide what I fear a lot of posters are expecting. And that will only further the 'game is bad' idea.

There is no way there won't be loads of threads about the cost of this and that, or 'How can I Mathhammer this ASAP?', as soon as this points document is released. It shifts the conversation. At the moment it's more about cool warbands and narrative scenarios. I don't want that pushed aside and for it to fall to the same traps I see on the 40k subforum.

I'm not against points in a game. Absolutely not. They're a vital part of a game system that includes them in its design from the beginning.

But I am pessimistic about GW layering them on top, whilst the design team will continue to disregard modern notions of balance.

If you think about from a purely practical POV, just as far as organized play goes, you really need some way that players can make a list just so they know what to transport to the event.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.)

Yes but noone expects that level of balance from AoS, it's just that there is a lot to do before limitations of the system kick in.

As said before, if an abysmaly balanced game like 40k runs a happy tournament scene then AoS can as well.

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.

...

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.

That's why the warscrolls and an ongoing balancing effort are important because it's the only method that can work with such a release model.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
if an abysmaly balanced game like 40k runs a happy tournament scene then AoS can as well

Let's set aside the word happy but otherwise we can agree on this point. I mean, it's already happening ... and the events run by the players seem to be actually ... well, very happy. I suspect this has something to do with the expectations set by the existing brand. Change those expectations, and the AoS tournament scene may look more like 40k's ... which is something GW spent the last however many years basically disassociating itself from.

 Manchu wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
if an abysmaly balanced game like 40k runs a happy tournament scene then AoS can as well

Let's set aside the word happy but otherwise we can agree on this point. I mean, it's already happening ... and the events run by the players seem to be actually ... well, very happy. I suspect this has something to do with the expectations set by the existing brand. Change those expectations, and the AoS tournament scene may look more like 40k's ... which is something GW spent the last however many years basically disassociating itself from.

This is quite correct and it has me wondering if they are not attempting to reverse that particular situation, as schizophrenic as that sounds.

As I understand it the current style of tournament is that the organisers set up a number of standard scenarios, possibly taking these from campaign books or inventing their own. Players turn up with a recommended size of army, and negotiate with each other to balance the games.

This obviously is a tournament played for fun, rather than a hardcore competition to be top dog, and I heartily approve. However the addition of points does add two risks to the ambience.

The first is how much players will expect to get balance by using the new points system, and perhaps be disappointed. The second is that 40K and old WHFB are won partly by list building which relies on finding exploits in the rules and poiints values.

Both these factors are oppposite to the current state of play in AoS. By definition, the changed rules are going to attract different people to the game, which naturally is why GW are introducing them.

Of course it remains the right of individual TOs to decide how to run their events, and they won't be forced to use the new GW rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The second is that 40K and old WHFB are won partly by list building which relies on finding exploits in the rules and poiints values.

This seems unlikely to me becaus AoS by definition has such a vast selection of forces that there will be no possible cookie cutter OP list by default, especially if the points are kept a lower value.
For example, the amount of different lists I can build up just with my HE army alone makes it quite hard to predict what I may bring up to a specific event. Maybe I'll field a magic heavy gunline, or I'll field a cavalry only warband... or just brings flyers, etc etc. each with its own specific weaknesses and strengths.

Or maybe I'm just being naive.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The second is that 40K and old WHFB are won partly by list building which relies on finding exploits in the rules and poiints values.

This seems unlikely to me becaus AoS by definition has such a vast selection of forces that there will be no possible cookie cutter OP list by default, especially if the points are kept a lower value.
For example, the amount of different lists I can build up just with my HE army alone makes it quite hard to predict what I may bring up to a specific event. Maybe I'll field a magic heavy gunline, or I'll field a cavalry only warband... or just brings flyers, etc etc. each with its own specific weaknesses and strengths.

Or maybe I'm just being naive.

You sound optimistic; the opposite of my current position.

My pessimism says that this will result in more units collecting dust once again - whilst AoS dons la points has seen people dust off units they might not have otherwise used. Which was the intention of its design; no points = no "bad" unit.

Lower points means more units sharing the same value. Which means the best at that value soon being the dominant one at that bracket on the table (not that high/odd point values would solve this issue either).

Hope your optimism is right on this one.

 Manchu wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
if an abysmaly balanced game like 40k runs a happy tournament scene then AoS can as well

Let's set aside the word happy but otherwise we can agree on this point. I mean, it's already happening ... and the events run by the players seem to be actually ... well, very happy. I suspect this has something to do with the expectations set by the existing brand. Change those expectations, and the AoS tournament scene may look more like 40k's ... which is something GW spent the last however many years basically disassociating itself from.

Yes it was happy with a cheek punctured by a tongue heh. AoS can be much better balanced though if GW takes that chance.

GW seem to change now and imo for the better. You have 3 formats proposed, ofc no one plays unbound in 40k but 40k was established as a FOC limited points based game. Now AoS is established as an ultra casual, narrative game and if a competitive gaming mentality takes over (and it won't) then imo it would just mean it is what players want, vox populi etc. It's a matter of company support as well ofc but GW always supported narrative play and I doubt they will stop now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As I understand it the current style of tournament is that the organisers set up a number of standard scenarios, possibly taking these from campaign books or inventing their own. Players turn up with a recommended size of army, and negotiate with each other to balance the games.

This obviously is a tournament played for fun, rather than a hardcore competition to be top dog, and I heartily approve. However the addition of points does add two risks to the ambience.

The first is how much players will expect to get balance by using the new points system, and perhaps be disappointed. The second is that 40K and old WHFB are won partly by list building which relies on finding exploits in the rules and poiints values.

Both these factors are oppposite to the current state of play in AoS. By definition, the changed rules are going to attract different people to the game, which naturally is why GW are introducing them.

Of course it remains the right of individual TOs to decide how to run their events, and they won't be forced to use the new GW rules.

No, only WHW does the "negotiating for balance" thing. Community-run tournaments use one of the available points systems.

 ShaneTB wrote:
My pessimism says that this will result in more units collecting dust once again - whilst AoS dons la points has seen people dust off units they might not have otherwise used. Which was the intention of its design; no points = no "bad" unit.

I never really saw the basic AoS design opting out of points as a way of encouraging people to use units that were otherwise bad on the tabletop. It helps, sure, but that's not the main point.

This is simply because any competitive player looking at AoS with the cookie cutter, minmaxing mindset would find a way to exploit it to the max anyhow when preparing for an event. I have used the WHW events a few times as an example - if the maximum you can bring to an event is X models, why bother with the models with the crappier stats? Why not bring the best X models available to you? In that sense, we do have a point cost ascribed to a model. Every model is worth exactly 1 point, and you can field X points of models.

But why don't we see this in the reports we get from Matt? Because it's not in the spirit of the game, and the spirit of the game goes past minmaxing. It's as simple as that.

I'm not against the introduction of points to AoS - but my hope is that it's seen as a tool to get into the game and to then migrate to the 'cinematic' style of play, rather than becoming the de facto standard, which I believe is Manchu's point as well.

 ShaneTB wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The second is that 40K and old WHFB are won partly by list building which relies on finding exploits in the rules and poiints values.

This seems unlikely to me becaus AoS by definition has such a vast selection of forces that there will be no possible cookie cutter OP list by default, especially if the points are kept a lower value.
For example, the amount of different lists I can build up just with my HE army alone makes it quite hard to predict what I may bring up to a specific event. Maybe I'll field a magic heavy gunline, or I'll field a cavalry only warband... or just brings flyers, etc etc. each with its own specific weaknesses and strengths.

Or maybe I'm just being naive.

You sound optimistic; the opposite of my current position.

My pessimism says that this will result in more units collecting dust once again - whilst AoS dons la points has seen people dust off units they might not have otherwise used. Which was the intention of its design; no points = no "bad" unit.

Lower points means more units sharing the same value. Which means the best at that value soon being the dominant one at that bracket on the table (not that high/odd point values would solve this issue either).

Hope your optimism is right on this one.

The best way to prevent it is to balance the game properly, can't blame anyone doubting this will happen though. I say let's give them props now and trash them later, they can always blow it all up anyway.

The other way would be trying perfect imbalance and shake the meta as often as possible, noone buys the most efficient choices as in 2 months time everything would be different. Another thing that won't happen though.

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

Can't you do something cool, *with* points?

That aside, I wonder if this comp pack will limited to just points, or if it'll tighten up the rules too.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


But why don't we see this in the reports we get from Matt? Because it's not in the spirit of the game, and the spirit of the game goes past minmaxing. It's as simple as that.

And that's what I don't want us to lose. Will the introduction of 'points' as an option cause that? I guess we'll see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:


Can't you do something cool, *with* points?

That aside, I wonder if this comp pack will limited to just points, or if it'll tighten up the rules too.

Yes, but not the same cool thing.

A GW store today said the core rules will not be changing. Read that as you shall for now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Important thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/688956.page

Herzlos wrote:

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

Can't you do something cool, *with* points?

That aside, I wonder if this comp pack will limited to just points, or if it'll tighten up the rules too.

Doesn't look like it. Bad dice podcast is up. Points, new scenarios for different sizes, 6 flavours of pitched battle (thank Christ), campaign systems, but no rules changes - although it wouldn't be unusual for some very minor changes on specific battleplans.

 ShaneTB wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


But why don't we see this in the reports we get from Matt? Because it's not in the spirit of the game, and the spirit of the game goes past minmaxing. It's as simple as that.

And that's what I don't want us to lose. Will the introduction of 'points' as an option cause that? I guess we'll see.

No doubt.

I can't help but find it funny (and ironic, as Manchu put) that I - with my looong list of anti-AoS credentials - seem to have more faith (or optimism) in the spirit of AoS enduring this little addition than others.

I recall prior to the launch of AoS there was talk of a book that would provide tournament play.

I wonder if that was actually true but they planned to let the game breathe for a year first.

http://baddice.co.uk/generals-handbook-experiences-visiting-games-workshop/

The Generals Handbook:
First thing, its a book and will be release in the summer.
There are 5 new campaigns including path to glory,
22 new battle plans from small games all the way up to epic battles between the games biggest characters.
6 new ‘Pitched Battle’ scenarios
Multi-player and team play and of course,
full points values for every Warscroll in Age of Sigmar.

Eep, great way to wake up with the podcast! Thanks for letting me know! http://www.facehammer.co.uk/podcast/facehammer-podcast-eternals.mp3

A book huh? That's too bad, I was hoping they'd just do a points document digitally so they could update it regularly.

Thanks for the links chaps!

 Mymearan wrote:
A book huh? That's too bad, I was hoping they'd just do a points document digitally so they could update it regularly.

This. It would work best with the warscrolls too, as they could then tweak things online as imperfections were found.

I am not sure adding the points costs in a book is a very good move.

Heelanhammer is also up now!

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
A book huh? That's too bad, I was hoping they'd just do a points document digitally so they could update it regularly.

This. It would work best with the warscrolls too, as they could then tweak things online as imperfections were found.

I am not sure adding the points costs in a book is a very good move.

It's a great move from a sales perspective.

Every year they can release a new book with updated points costs.

Well... i'm certainly going to buy it no matter what, and the only AoS book I've bought so far is the original big book, used for less than half price.

 Mymearan wrote:
Well... i'm certainly going to buy it no matter what, and the only AoS book I've bought so far is the original big book, used for less than half price.

.
The other content aside from points will probably make this the first AoS book I will buy...

All the online resources have been printed in hard copy, even those that have already been superseded.

I wouldn't think it unlikely that the actual points values are.maintained in a living format aside from the book, but the book is the 'state of play' to begin with.

Points are probably the lowest bullet point on my list in that book, and it will be a must-buy for me, just for all the inspiration about setting up games, different ways to play, and especially Path to Glory escalation-style campaigns.

I love how the naysayer argument is:
1) The point system is terrible and will ruin the game.
2) Everyone will want to use this terrible point system and force us to do so too.

This only makes sense if you assume that most gamers are utter idiots.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
A book huh? That's too bad, I was hoping they'd just do a points document digitally so they could update it regularly.

This. It would work best with the warscrolls too, as they could then tweak things online as imperfections were found.

I am not sure adding the points costs in a book is a very good move.

It's a great move from a sales perspective.

Oh I don't dispute that at all - I guess I was thinking about what would be best for the playerbase, and not GW's pockets