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.

I HATE that. One of the absolute best things about AoS, and the main appeal for me, is being allowed to take whatever the hell I feel like without being controlled by some arbitrary number... Making a cool fluffy list that I can use in any context, be it narrative or tournament. This goes totally against that. I don't give a gak if some douchebag took five Nagash, I'll simply not play him, whereas now I'll be forced to conform to this army building standard even when playing against people who are not TFG. It feels like the world of possibilities I imagined for AoS just shrank a bit... Very disappointed.

 Mymearan wrote:
I HATE that. One of the absolute best things about AoS, and the main appeal for me, is being allowed to take whatever the hell I feel like without being controlled by some arbitrary number... Making a cool fluffy list that I can use in any context, be it narrative or tournament. This goes totally against that. I don't give a gak if some douchebag took five Nagash, I'll simply not play him, whereas now I'll be forced to conform to this army building standard even when playing against people who are not TFG. It feels like the world of possibilities I imagined for AoS just shrank a bit... Very disappointed.

This is only for matched play, which is one of three game types in the book.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I HATE that. One of the absolute best things about AoS, and the main appeal for me, is being allowed to take whatever the hell I feel like without being controlled by some arbitrary number... Making a cool fluffy list that I can use in any context, be it narrative or tournament. This goes totally against that. I don't give a gak if some douchebag took five Nagash, I'll simply not play him, whereas now I'll be forced to conform to this army building standard even when playing against people who are not TFG. It feels like the world of possibilities I imagined for AoS just shrank a bit... Very disappointed.

This is only for matched play, which is one of three game types in the book.

Which is, as has been discussed ad nauseum, likely to be the playstyle that gets shoved down your throat because people are too incompetent to play without points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS.

Indeed - it is the direct opposite of the original AoS "Take whatever you want" spirit.

GOOD.

Yeah sure it is, if you can't actually handle being a reasonable adult and talking with your opponent before a game.

Or just like points systems, as opposed to being 'incompetent'. Let's not be needlessly insulting.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I HATE that. One of the absolute best things about AoS, and the main appeal for me, is being allowed to take whatever the hell I feel like without being controlled by some arbitrary number... Making a cool fluffy list that I can use in any context, be it narrative or tournament. This goes totally against that. I don't give a gak if some douchebag took five Nagash, I'll simply not play him, whereas now I'll be forced to conform to this army building standard even when playing against people who are not TFG. It feels like the world of possibilities I imagined for AoS just shrank a bit... Very disappointed.

This is only for matched play, which is one of three game types in the book.

Which is, as has been discussed ad nauseum, likely to be the playstyle that gets shoved down your throat because people are too incompetent to play without points.

Yeah sure it is, if you can't actually handle being a reasonable adult and talking with your opponent before a game.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Yeah sure it is, if you can't actually handle being a reasonable adult and talking with your opponent before a game.

Hey! Stop saying everything I say a moment before I say it!

 ImAGeek wrote:
Or just like points systems, as opposed to being 'incompetent'. Let's not be needlessly insulting.

Unfortunately, my impression of those who are clamoring for this points system is that they never really tried playing games without points beyond maybe one or two where they just showed up for a match, got stomped by someone who was playing some ridiculous collection of models, and then decried the whole thing as ruined.

So yeah. I'm going to be fairly irritable, as this was a method of play I really enjoyed. I LIKED being able to run games of a few Heroes against a horde of rank and file, without people worrying about the points values of the things.

I do NOT like the fact that the mere mention of points has already caused certain individuals in my local gaming group to start talking about how they're going to min/max.

Better go burn your army and put it on Youtube then...

So what of us who dont have all your free time to spend discussing playing before we actually get to play? Or packing our entire collections to haul to a game store to then discuss with an opponent what we will and will not be playing with?

As stated before, its just one mode of playing...

It's "one mode of playing" that is going to, likely, be the promoted avenue for tournaments--which means here in the US, it's going to be "the" go to mode for players who think they're tournament gamers where they'll try to get gaming groups to accept just those rules.


Do you really think that you're going to see "Narrative Gaming Days" anywhere but a GW shop? Or "Campaign Leagues" anywhere but a GW shop?

I'd like to think you would. It probably depends on the group in the area. I'm sure you'll get it some places, and other places will jump onto the 'competitive' side. Trouble is you can't win, there's always going to be people who prefer a different way of playing. At least GW are giving you three different styles of play in the book.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's "one mode of playing" that is going to, likely, be the promoted avenue for tournaments--which means here in the US, it's going to be "the" go to mode for players who think they're tournament gamers where they'll try to get gaming groups to accept just those rules.


Do you really think that you're going to see "Narrative Gaming Days" anywhere but a GW shop? Or "Campaign Leagues" anywhere but a GW shop?

Not if you keep up like this.
If this is how narrative players respond to something that doesn't even affect them, then yeah you probably wont see anything come up because nobody will want to play with an opponent who demonizes a part of the game they have no interest in, all because they have a belittled view of another group of gamers. It's a disgusting opinion, and frankly disappointing to see in this day and age.

If you don't like points, don't play points.
If you don't like total freedom, don't play total freedom.
If you don't like scenario, don't play scenario.
But keep your negatively derivative assesment of other players capacities and interests out of it. There's no excuse, need or reason for that kind of talk.

Kanluwen, you probably won't see 'narrative game days' or 'narrative tournaments' any more or less than you do now. And if you really are so scared that the big bad points are going to ruin your hobby, be the change you want at your local store and promote narrative play. Much more productive for you and everyone else involved.

I also believe that points will become the standard. In my FLGS noone was playing the open style. Everyone was using one form of points or another. Whether it be Azyr Comp, PPC, SCGT, or any one of a dozen other styles, points were the rule. Not saying you can't play open. It's just that open requires either a lot of discussion if you have just met and don't know the meta for the store, OR a tight group with shared values where players have played with each other enough to be able to self balance quickly. If you are part of that tight group, then no worries for you. You and your group can keep on playing the way you like. But if you just moved to the area, being able to show up at the FLGS and just throw down 2000 points of models is much much easier than having to learn what is acceptable locally and then negotiating a game. Ain't no one got time for that!

He does have a solid point. Points will be the standard. Playing the other two methods will require a good solid degree of negotiation and you will likely never see any events that do not use the competitive format, which can be annoying if you don't want to play that style.

Where I am we have a large narrative campaign going (twenty-six players on the roster) but over 3/4 of them want official GW competitive structure when its released integrated immediately.

But this is an age old debate going back twenty plus years.

I promote the hell out of narrative campaigns, but it is not an easy thing to do because a lot of players demonize non-tournament style playing as they pertain to public events.

That being said, these competitive restrictions seem very light. Its not the same as core used to be. You can still min/max elite forces they just have to share the same army wide keywords.

But playing without points already does require a solid amount of negotiation to be even remotely workable. Even the people who hate points say that. They hold it up as a plus. Points/force org/whatever for Age of Sigmar simply makes it more accessible for pickup games, something it's pretty terrible at. It just entrenches narrative or unstructured or whatever you want to call it play firmly in the area they always said it was for, which is to say two friends in a basement having a good time tossing dice and eating pretzels.

Events were already using 'points' - even Warhammer World was restricting what you could bring (by models or wounds, I can't remember except thinking 'yup, sucks to be a horde army fan').

I'm not arguing that.

However the slippery slope is returning to the days of nothing but battleline using internet meta lists day in and day out which I also feel is very bad for retention in this hobby.

I don't see how simply providing an army building system automatically leads to cutthroat min-maxed Planet Bowling Ball games everywhere. Not everyone who wants an organized system or restrictions is interested in that. I honestly prefer points and restrictions because I feel it helps me develop and keep to a theme.

Narrative campaigns can integrate points fairly easily; in fact, I don't see why the two concepts should be antithetical at all. It certainly makes it easier to involve non Stormcast/Bloodbound/Nurgle/Sylvaneth players in the 'official' plotline, if that's what you're playing out.

Lets try not to keep beating the SUPER dead horse here on points vs no points.

Its ONE of the multipule game systems they offer , and being in the US, our store is good on both. Most are excited for points after many of us ave played game and game and game and was structure to it.

Played many hordes vs heroes among other missions and very excited to try something new.

None of us play tourneys so points don't have any sort o min/max issue

Glad tis is coming out. As said, if you don't like points and want the take whatever for your games, nothings stopping that.

 Kanluwen wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
I love that. Essentially "core" units are required so people can't take forces of nothing but monsters and heroes. Plus, depending on numbers this strikes me as a perfect balance of "just restrictive enough" where you need to make army-building considerations, but keeps the spirit of AoS in terms of allowing a lot of flexibility.

That's a big leap from a small blurb.

All it does is tell you that there is a classification called "Battleline units", of which you must include a minimum number of them based on the size of the game. And that the types of Battleline units differ if you're doing a "pure" army with just one keyword.

Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS. It's now just becoming the same old crap just with new names.

Yes Kanluwen we know you don't like points systems in AoS.

That's why it's optional.

I did a tournament in my local GW shop with no points but wounds. Low attendancy, but was fun.

Had a game with a TFG playing Nagash and chain-summoning Morghasts. Was horrible.

Am going to play again with the guys from the tournament, and steer clear from the Nagash guy (Who also played the dwarf mass cannon army)

I didn't play the 8th edition fantasy, but I don't mind this idea: battleline units sound interesting, and I don't think they'll limit some fluffy armies...

Ah here we go again.

Nerds and Geeks needing to prove their superiority because of points. With no points you have nothing to prove how you are better.

How about playing with plastic toy soldiers because it's fun instead of trying to show how great or superior you are?

Davor wrote:
Ah here we go again.

Nerds and Geeks needing to prove their superiority because of points. With no points you have nothing to prove how you are better.

How about playing with plastic toy soldiers because it's fun instead of trying to show how great or superior you are?

No one has done this in the thread...

 ImAGeek wrote:

Davor wrote:
Ah here we go again.

Nerds and Geeks needing to prove their superiority because of points. With no points you have nothing to prove how you are better.

How about playing with plastic toy soldiers because it's fun instead of trying to show how great or superior you are?

No one has done this in the thread...

Read in between the lines. They have. Not a debate here. Want to talk about it, lets go to the AoS forums and we all can rehash this again.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also, it absolutely does not keep the "spirit" of AoS.

Indeed - it is the direct opposite of the original AoS "Take whatever you want" spirit.

Totally right, this is definitely a great new feature in how it departs from the launch philosophy. And is exactly why so many people are excited or interested about it.

Davor wrote:
Ah here we go again.

Nerds and Geeks needing to prove their superiority because of points. With no points you have nothing to prove how you are better.

How about playing with plastic toy soldiers because it's fun instead of trying to show how great or superior you are?

Wanting a clear and obvious method to build balanced forces is nothing to do with 'proving superiority'.


A system that expects players to work out what match-up will make for a fun game only works when both players have a more or less equal understanding of how the game works and how all of the units function. Adding a more structured system as an option helps out players looking for an easier way to build more or less balanced forces.

 insaniak wrote:

Davor wrote:
Ah here we go again.

Nerds and Geeks needing to prove their superiority because of points. With no points you have nothing to prove how you are better.

How about playing with plastic toy soldiers because it's fun instead of trying to show how great or superior you are?

Wanting a clear and obvious method to build balanced forces is nothing to do with 'proving superiority'.
A system that expects players to work out what match-up will make for a fun game only works when both players have a more or less equal understanding of how the game works and how all of the units function. Adding a more structured system as an option helps out players looking for an easier way to build more or less balanced forces.

Putting it succinctly, I feel that they did a fairly good job of that with the keyword system.

It's not hard to tailor your games based upon "Hey let's play only one Monster/Priest/Warmachine/whatever keyword you want to restrict".

Is every monster / warmachine/whatever more or less equal in power?

If not, then no, the keyword system dies nothing to create balance.

Yeah, limit yourself to 3 heroes. Great for the Ogor player. Sucks for the Skaven player.

Points are going to be a godsend!

 insaniak wrote:
Is every monster / warmachine/whatever more or less equal in power?

If not, then no, the keyword system dies nothing to create balance.

Actually yes, every monster/warmachine is more or less equal in power.
Heroes tend to be the same amount of Wounds/saves across the board.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Is every monster / warmachine/whatever more or less equal in power?

If not, then no, the keyword system dies nothing to create balance.

Actually yes, every monster/warmachine is more or less equal in power.
Heroes tend to be the same amount of Wounds/saves across the board.

This is so untrue I debated whether or not to report it as trolling.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Is every monster / warmachine/whatever more or less equal in power?

If not, then no, the keyword system dies nothing to create balance.

Actually yes, every monster/warmachine is more or less equal in power.
Heroes tend to be the same amount of Wounds/saves across the board.

This is so untrue I debated whether or not to report it as trolling.

Yeah, that was pathetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:
Ah here we go again.

Nerds and Geeks needing to prove their superiority because of points. With no points you have nothing to prove how you are better.

How about playing with plastic toy soldiers because it's fun instead of trying to show how great or superior you are?

Right, because you are the model for fun? You just sound bitter about something that doesn't even affect you. Why do you have to prove that points is worse than no points? What compels you to judgmentally look down on other players?

A thread on this would probably be horrible read too, but please make one if you want to talk about how your way of playing is better.

Could we PLEASE get back on topic.