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.

 Bottle wrote:
I like there to be strategy in list building. To me a good points system is one that has a wide variety of strong builds for every faction/race, allowing the player to theme their army or base it around certain synergies. Tweaking your list and working out how it could be stronger is a fun part of the hobby too.

If there was a theoretical points system that gave players an equal chance no matter what they picked, I actually think it would be boring. On the other end of the spectrum a points system that only allowed a handful of strong builds (creating obvious choices) - removes the strategy too and makes for a bad points system.

There was a very good variety of builds at SCGT (the winning list being a Spider Grot themed force with some big Ogor monsters too), so I have high hopes for the points from GW as they have been working hand in hand with the SCGT guys over the past few months and will continue to do so.

Formations theoretically offer off the shelf variant builds that represent themed armies (Tau Stealth Cadre and the like) with a bonus for taking them. The problem is the bonuses are often under-valued, making them no-brain picks if you have that army.

However this doesn't address the idea of letting the player make their own picks.

I don't think it's possible to make any possible selection of equal points value actually work. Armies in real life, in 40K and to a lesser extent in AoS don't work like that. An effective army needs some infantry to occupy objectives, vehicles to carry them near the obective, mobile support units like tanks or battle-suits that carry firepower with the infantry, some anti-vehicle firepower to attack the enemy's mobile support, some long-range support, anti-aircraft units, and so on and so on. Why should a player be OK taking just anti-aircraft guns, and how it is possible to make that work?

Davor wrote:
When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.

Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.

Points and restrictions is not necessarily a bad thing - it requires a robust system though, and unfortunately, for the most part, gw do not write robust systems and things like your gene stealers get left out in the cold. Even then, it's entirely possible to run gene stealers in 40k as they are now - just organise ahead of time, converse and co-operate with your opponent beforehand, theme the board, theme the armies appropriately and have a god scenario as a 'hook'. And off you go. Point based games don't need to be open ended, with all options available to be fielded unquestioningly all the time in a 'line up, face off and GO!' Type duels where only the best can be played. Clearly, approach it with some level of emotional maturity, co-operation, and judgement, and it can work just fine.

Everything is likewise desirable and useable in Aos, but only Until the point that the other guy says 'no, I don't want to play that'. And he might not even be the villain in the story for not wanting to play your x.

Everything is useable in Aos, provided you pass the 'social restrictions', and requires that your opponent enables you and doesn't veto what you want to bring. At its worst, Aos can easily become a race to the bottom for fear of not taking cool units because all the other guy has to do is say 'no'. Aos is often a compromise o. Intent.

Deadnight wrote:

Davor wrote:
When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.

Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.

Points and restrictions is not necessarily a bad thing - it requires a robust system though, and unfortunately, for the most part, gw do not write robust systems and things like your gene stealers get left out in the cold.
Everything is desirable and useable Until the point that the other guy says 'no, I don't want to play that'. And he might not even be the villain in the story for not wanting to play x.

Everything is useable in Aos, provided you pass the 'social restrictions', and requires that your opponent enables you and doesn't veto what you want to bring. At its worst, Aos can easily become a race to the bottom for fear of not taking cool units because all the other guy has to do is say 'no'. Aos is often a compromise o. Intent.v

It's not necessarily a good thing either. It's not just a GW thing or GW sucks and can't make good rules. Look at Star Wars X wing, Star Trek Attack Wing, 40K, Fantasy, a lot of units are never used? Why? Because they are not "cost effective" or there are better units/cards to be played.

For what ever reason, once points or numbers start getting thrown in, us geeks and nerds go math crazy. It's called Mathhammer for a reason. A lot of ships are not used in Star Wars/Trek games. Why? Because there are better ships. Or people buy the ship packs but only for the cards and will not play the ships because they are no good. We are picking and choosing for the better options and these are games that SCREAM to be played fluffy and especially in Star Trek Attack wing, the game is not being played fluffy.

That is why is see it a a bad thing, because no matter "how balanced" something is, some nerd/geek somewhere somehow will exploit it just so he can show his superior brilliance.

In the end, it's a wait and see approach. Hopefully a lot of people will have an open mind about playing the 3 ways instead of just with points. Then again seeing how unbound was taken in 40K, I am not seeing this as a good thing for AoS at all.

 Toofast wrote:
I certainly don't approach anything I do with the intent of losing.

There is a difference between not playing to win and purposely throwing the game. Personally, I view games as a social experience, a way to interact cooperatively with others rather than competitively. "The object of the game is to win but the point of the game is to have fun." That's an apt description, however I suborn the object of winning to playing thematically, using my imagination, and taking the opportunity to converse. I would prefer to think of it as seeing what happens when these guys fight those guys rather than thinking about tactics and rules purely as a means to victory. If I want competition and mental exertion, I'll go take the Putnam exam. My hobby is supposed to relax me.


My point is that one can play without actually caring about winning and still have fun. It is freeing.

 jamopower wrote:
Goblins with shields were more or less equal to high elf spearmen, as neither didn't really any damage in melee, but because elves were elite and rare, they were over double the cost. No surprise that everyone played only with cavalry.

...except that one of them was highly-disciplined and had better stats that made it easier to hit their opponent, while the other was unreliable rabble that might actually turn on the unit next to it and frequently panicked away from the fight. So yes, more or less equal if you ignore all the stuff that made them different.

I'll grant they probably had some overlap of role - both are pretty squarely in the 'anvil unit' category - but there's solid reasons to make an elf more expensive than a goblin.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

Davor wrote:
When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.

Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.

Only in a bad points system though. In a good points system they would be costed appropriately so that there could be a build that incorporated them - or the difference between a "strong" army and a "weak" army would not be as large meaning that good tactics could overcome the minor disadvantage of taking them.

Have hope, my friend! :-)

(Plus - the Genestealers could come out for the "open" and "narrative" games too)!

You've completely missed his (no pun intended) point.

Once you start putting points into play, the game becomes mathy.

Lol, did I? The example of Genestealers highlights to flaws of a bad point system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I like there to be strategy in list building. To me a good points system is one that has a wide variety of strong builds for every faction/race, allowing the player to theme their army or base it around certain synergies. Tweaking your list and working out how it could be stronger is a fun part of the hobby too.

If there was a theoretical points system that gave players an equal chance no matter what they picked, I actually think it would be boring. On the other end of the spectrum a points system that only allowed a handful of strong builds (creating obvious choices) - removes the strategy too and makes for a bad points system.

There was a very good variety of builds at SCGT (the winning list being a Spider Grot themed force with some big Ogor monsters too), so I have high hopes for the points from GW as they have been working hand in hand with the SCGT guys over the past few months and will continue to do so.

Formations theoretically offer off the shelf variant builds that represent themed armies (Tau Stealth Cadre and the like) with a bonus for taking them. The problem is the bonuses are often under-valued, making them no-brain picks if you have that army.

However this doesn't address the idea of letting the player make their own picks.

I don't think it's possible to make any possible selection of equal points value actually work. Armies in real life, in 40K and to a lesser extent in AoS don't work like that. An effective army needs some infantry to occupy objectives, vehicles to carry them near the obective, mobile support units like tanks or battle-suits that carry firepower with the infantry, some anti-vehicle firepower to attack the enemy's mobile support, some long-range support, anti-aircraft units, and so on and so on. Why should a player be OK taking just anti-aircraft guns, and how it is possible to make that work?

Yes, I agree. There should be strategy in list building and it should mean taking units that compliment each other and fulfill different battlefield roles. This is something the AoS keyword synergies enable and do well.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
I certainly don't approach anything I do with the intent of losing.

snip


My point is that one can play without actually caring about winning and still have fun. It is freeing.

^^^ this right here. The podcasts relayed a Jervis quote about the game being two directors and the scene unfolds before them, which Is how I've always viewed it. I've had more fun playing AoS, all things considered equal. Than 8th I think because it feels more fun and less at stake, even at, no, especially at events. That's not all simple rules and awesome opponents. It's just a different experience which works better to me. It's liberating to be able to take whatever units I like and not have to worry about impossible match ups or anticlimactic rounds which should be anything but. Doesn't mean warhammer never had those but for whatever the playing conditions are now, it suits me better.

Sounds silly but kind of reminds me of improv. First rule, never say no. Opponent rocks Archaon and his legions and a very outmatched Order faction has to make this interesting. But they will get to have their scenes and not just be obliterated or removed without some memorable moments. Hope that makes some kind of sense

Edit: God damn, autocorrect! Stop it!

 VeteranNoob wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
I certainly don't approach anything I do with the intent of losing.

snip


My point is that one can play without actually caring about winning and still have fun. It is freeing.

^^^ this right here. The podcasts relayed a Jervis quote about the game being two directors and the scene unfolds before the, which Is how I've always viewed it. I've had more fun playing AoS, all things caused equal. Than 8th I think because it feels more fun and less at stake, even at, no, especially at events. That's not all simple rules and awesome opponents. It's just a different experience which works better to me. It's liberating to be able to take whatever units I like and not have to worry about impossible match ups or anticlimactic rounds which she be anything but. Doesn't mean warhammer never had those but for whatever the playing conditions are now, it suits me better.

Sounds silly but kind of reminds me of improv. First rule, never say no. Opponent rocks Archaon and his legions and a very outmatched Order faction has to make this interesting. But they will get to have their scenes and not just be obliterated or remove without some memorable moments. Hope that makes some kind of sense

I agree. It's like shooting hoops with my friends. I'm not thinking about how much I want to beat my buddies and staking my enjoyment on my performance. I'm thinking how fun playing with them will be. I'm still trying to shoot the ball into the net, but it's the experience of playing with my friends that I'm after, not winning.

 VeteranNoob wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Toofast wrote:
I certainly don't approach anything I do with the intent of losing.

snip


My point is that one can play without actually caring about winning and still have fun. It is freeing.

^^^ this right here. The podcasts relayed a Jervis quote about the game being two directors and the scene unfolds before the, which Is how I've always viewed it. ... ...

That's an interesting thing. I've always viewed a war game as two generals fighting each other and the battle takes place around them.

To me an RPG is closer to a directed narrative experience than a war game, especially if it's an actual narrative game like "My Life With Master" or "Prince Valiant".

I do get the idea that you can try to arrange an exciting cinematic visual narrative using a war game. I agree it's useless being too competitive because it sours the fun when you lose. I've mellowed over the decades because of that reason.

I've played wargames as narrative vehicles for a very long time. They are to me as valid as RPGs if that is your desire.

I also know a LOT of people that play RPGs competitively. While its not a tournament per say its definitely about winning the campaign and having the most optimal build for whatever system they are in to do that.

Deadnight wrote:

Davor wrote:
When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.

Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.

Points and restrictions is not necessarily a bad thing - it requires a robust system though, and unfortunately, for the most part, gw do not write robust systems and things like your gene stealers get left out in the cold. Even then, it's entirely possible to run gene stealers in 40k as they are now - just organise ahead of time, converse and co-operate with your opponent beforehand, theme the board, theme the armies appropriately and have a god scenario as a 'hook'. And off you go. Point based games don't need to be open ended, with all options available to be fielded unquestioningly all the time in a 'line up, face off and GO!' Type duels where only the best can be played. Clearly, approach it with some level of emotional maturity, co-operation, and judgement, and it can work just fine....

Thing is, points allow people to play with as minimum amount of discussion as possible.
People I've seen playing pick up games tend to want to know points values and if there is a scenario (if applicable----usually it's line up, face off and GO as you put it).
No agreements other than we're about to be opponents and I need to know which side of the table I need to put my minis-transport so I can start deployment.j

Points should be good for GW's bottom line and AoS's survivability.
But they will become the default in many if not most gaming groups.
And that's okay.

Its only going to be okay for you if you don't mind playing battle line with the same internet builds all the time.

That being the default sucks IMO.

When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.

Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.

This argument holds no water.

I can easily look at any unit from AOS and decide which is the most superior based on it's stats card. Lack of points actually makes this problem worse because 1 goblin apparently equals one chaos lord. Clearly they are not the same, but under zero points and zero restrictions I can field as many of the best things as possible without consequence. At least with points I can say that maybe 50 goblins equals 1 chaos lord (or whatever the case is).

There are already units that are sitting on the shelf because they are not as good as something else. Without points this difference is felt even more keenly.

With points It's harder to decide whats worth taking and what isn't, especially with restrictions that force you to take generic troops that would otherwise never be used (and just sit on the self). Complete lack of force organization or restrictions even allows me to pick and choose the most broken units from every faction to create an un-fluffy, un-fun, WAAC monstrosity of an army that looks like gak on the table.

The complete opposite of what you are stating about points is true.

Complete lack of points and restrictions causes the game to spiral out of control.

I guess the assumption is that the players try to have somewhat equal forces, in which case you can justify taking worse units by simply taking more of them I.e. Like they would cost less. That way the genestealer effect doesn't happen as they have the points "set" and the genestealers cost so much more than they are worth that they never see game. There is nothing stopping people from playing so that genestealers would cost, say 8 points, but as the points are official no one dares to dabble with them. That's the great part in AoS community generated comps. The points are closer to the actual value than ever in any previous Warhammer.

 auticus wrote:
Its only going to be okay for you if you don't mind playing battle line with the same internet builds all the time.

That being the default sucks IMO.

Concur. We've been playing with the starter box as a self-contained game (no more or less models) and it's worked super well.
That said, I understand that GW need to make some money off AoS in addition to putting out some recently kick-ass board games (B@C, DWOK, Execution Force)...

It's kind of funny, to me, that many of the AoS-Sucks! crowd who so adamantly opposed it are suddenly interested in giving it a chance now that points are back on the table.
The line 'em up and play meat grinder mission approach overcomes even the old world getting blown up, sounds like *

*On a fluff note, I honestly don't think it's too far-fetched to think Sigmar/somebody will have had or recover a restoration artifact that'll make everything good as new.
GW are clearly listening and it costs them pretty much nothing to retcon the whole cataclysm.
Sigmar will smile as the old world is restored and wonder why only he knew that the Seraphon were once known merely as lizardmen.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.

This argument holds no water.

I can easily look at any unit from AOS and decide which is the most superior based on it's stats card.

Missed the point there, and you're still coming from an efficiency standpoint because you went straight for the 1:1 comparison.
It's not that every unit becomes good - it's that every unit stops being "not worth the points" which always seems the primary driver in not using something. There's no reason to not take lower-powered stuff.
Yes, it frees up the other end if the spectrum as well but that wasn't the point being made.

 auticus wrote:
I've played wargames as narrative vehicles for a very long time. They are to me as valid as RPGs if that is your desire.

I also know a LOT of people that play RPGs competitively. While its not a tournament per say its definitely about winning the campaign and having the most optimal build for whatever system they are in to do that.

I don't get that idea at all. I know people do it but I can't see the point.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

I can easily look at any unit from AOS and decide which is the most superior based on it's stats card. Lack of points actually makes this problem worse because 1 goblin apparently equals one chaos lord. Clearly they are not the same, but under zero points and zero restrictions I can field as many of the best things as possible without consequence. At least with points I can say that maybe 50 goblins equals 1 chaos lord (or whatever the case is).

After you place down a chaos lord, the other player gets to decide what they think is equal to a chaos lord. They can put down fifty goblins or Nagash or whatever else they think is equivalent. Then its your turn to add something. Each player stops adding troops when they are comfortable with the forces on the table.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

With points It's harder to decide whats worth taking and what isn't, especially with restrictions that force you to take generic troops that would otherwise never be used (and just sit on the self). Complete lack of force organization or restrictions even allows me to pick and choose the most broken units from every faction to create an un-fluffy, un-fun, WAAC monstrosity of an army that looks like gak on the table.

Under warhammer point systems, many special characters were banned explicitly or implicitly because they were too good for their point costs, and other forces were rarely or never included in armies because they were ineffective for their points values. Without points values and without force restrictions, you can actually use everything in your model collection, not just the "optimal, permitted" figures.

endur wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

I can easily look at any unit from AOS and decide which is the most superior based on it's stats card. Lack of points actually makes this problem worse because 1 goblin apparently equals one chaos lord. Clearly they are not the same, but under zero points and zero restrictions I can field as many of the best things as possible without consequence. At least with points I can say that maybe 50 goblins equals 1 chaos lord (or whatever the case is).

After you place down a chaos lord, the other player gets to decide what they think is equal to a chaos lord. They can put down fifty goblins or Nagash or whatever else they think is equivalent. Then its your turn to add something. Each player stops adding troops when they are comfortable with the forces on the table.

So they are just using points, but without any actual numbers and a lot of guesswork?

They are still putting a value on how many goblins in a chaos lord instead of the points system saying there are 20 or whatever. What happens when people don't agree on a relative value?

Fight time!

You have a game of AoS to resolve the dispute.

 auticus wrote:
Its only going to be okay for you if you don't mind playing battle line with the same internet builds all the time.

That being the default sucks IMO.

Well then you and the others who like no points should of spent alot more money.

I wrote azyr. I don't mind points. I mind points that are obviously deficient and unchanging that let internet metas dominate with the same 4 or 5 builds using the same basic scenario over and over.

 privateer4hire wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Thing is, points allow people to play with as minimum amount of discussion as possible.

Not sure how to take this. On one way I can see you may mean, "let's play as soon as possible with little effort" then again, I am also reading it as "I don't want to talk to you, let's just play and be done with each other" which I have seen lots of time. If it's the former I agree with you, if it's the latter, might as well stay home and play computer games online.

What is wrong with discussing? After all we are going to what play 2, maybe 3 hours a game. A few minutes of discussing how the game you like to play and make those 2 or 3 hours more enjoyable, I see nothing wrong with.

I almost read your statement of "discussion" a bad thing.

hobojebus wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Its only going to be okay for you if you don't mind playing battle line with the same internet builds all the time.

That being the default sucks IMO.

Well then you and the others who like no points should of spent alot more money.

Again, another point whistles past his head, just out of reach.
That much anger and salt can't be good for your blood pressure...

I've seen him post intelligently before to know he is a fairly bright fellow. I know he got the point, he is just hellbent on taking a pooh on the game and cheerleading for other games.

I was using the same Reductio ad absurdum argument AoS fans used against wfb players upset at the change.

But yeah I missed the point good one...

Don't you need to prove Q and not Q for it to be reduction ad absurdum? I'm not sure any contradictory points have both been asserted, but I am open to hearing what you think, hobo.

Davor wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Thing is, points allow people to play with as minimum amount of discussion as possible.

Not sure how to take this. On one way I can see you may mean, "let's play as soon as possible with little effort" then again, I am also reading it as "I don't want to talk to you, let's just play and be done with each other" which I have seen lots of time. If it's the former I agree with you, if it's the latter, might as well stay home and play computer games online.

What is wrong with discussing? After all we are going to what play 2, maybe 3 hours a game. A few minutes of discussing how the game you like to play and make those 2 or 3 hours more enjoyable, I see nothing wrong with.

I almost read your statement of "discussion" a bad thing.

Hmm you need to Fix your quote mate - I didn't say what you've apparently attributed to me.

Under warhammer point systems, many special characters were banned explicitly or implicitly because they were too good for their point costs, and other forces were rarely or never included in armies because they were ineffective for their points values. Without points values and without force restrictions, you can actually use everything in your model collection, not just the "optimal, permitted" figures.

Sure, the issue is with the points values allotted, not the points system.

Thats like blaming math for not understanding how to use an equation.

And you could always use your whole collection if you and your opponent agree to it, just like it is now with lack of points and restrictions.

I don't think people should completely write off the points system before seeing how GW has implemented it - that's got to be putting the cart before the horse!

I also don't think it should be viewed as a negative that this got people interested - surely that's the idea