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.

As the subject states... when "official points" comes out, would you ever play without points from that point?

I don't care the degree to which you will or will not play. If you will play without points sometimes thats the same thing as saying yes you would play without points.

No, I will always play with points. Even when doing narrative scenarios I will still calculate with points (if it says "player with a third more models must be x" - then I would like to give that player a 1/3 more points).

I will be open to using community points/comp still if the GW one isn't adequately balanced.

Hmm, well I'll still enjoy open play and narrative scenarios that are dependent on the scenario more than points.Official points are great as well, though.

So I'm not sure which I should really pick...

I refuse to use points, and will refuse games where people want points.

Points were a mistake to bring back, especially this early on.

I voted for the second one, though really I won't be using GW's points. I already use points in my comp of choice and I don't anticipate changing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Points were a mistake to bring back, especially this early on.

I agree points are a big mistake to bring back right now, just because we are going to go back to where a lot of minis sitting on the shelf, because something is "more cost effective" and we will be back to being nerds and geeks math hammering everything out instead of being nerd and geeks playing what is cool. I just don't want to see AoS forum here becoming toxic again. I believe the toxicity if finally leaving the threads here, and I would really hate for it to come back because of points, or I should say if GW can't balance the game properly.

But time will tell. It all depends on how broken GW is going to make AoS with points. Sad I don't have confidence in GW making a balanced game with points. I hope I am wrong.

As for refusing a game with points? I can't. Nobody that I know of plays AoS. The few people who play 40K have no desire to play AoS. I am hoping GW does an awesome job with the General's Handbook so people might be interested in AoS and I can finally get some games in.

for me, this game is not nearly popular enough to "pick and choose" on how I will or wont play it, I will take what I can get.

For me, it depends. As it stands, I feel like SCGT Comp gets 90% of the system PERFECTLY, and then PPC gets 90% right, but its a different 90%... So even amongst those beautifully made systems, I like certain aspects of both.

We already know General's Handbook seems very... simple? I mean, the one leaked page we saw had points listed for a unit, but no points for options, like say PPC does. As such, there isn't a granularity so to speak.

I guess it will remain to be seen, and I suspect a slightly modified General's Handbook rule-set will emerge which ends up adopted by tournaments. I'll probably end up using that, and maybe adding a few bits from the other systems I like? (Measuring from bases, volumetric LOS, etc...)

It'll probably be points only, not by my choice. But since it'll be that or nothing, I'll take the points game.

Sure, I'll definitely still toss down a no-points game, now and then, but I'd be kidding myself if I didn't say that my AoS gaming is now probably going to skew heavily towards using points.

I'll be happy to go no-points with people, but have have the points of my list set up so that I can have a rough idea of balance either way. The game seems like it should be fine with a level of difference between players (1600 VS 1750) because sudden death exists, so it'll be good to make sure we know that there isn't a massive difference.

I'm still hoping that points is a separate 'mode'. We know there are pitched-battle scenarios in the book, so I'm hoping that points are intended to be used solely for those; like a GW steamroller mod.
There are already a number of scenarios I enjoy that will be ruined if people use points with them.
I'm also hoping the narrative elements of the book knock it out the park so that people genuinely have pause for thought.

I think points will be a seperate mode but I think that mode will be by and large the default.

We know from history that people are quite fine to play the same scenario for years as well, having had to endure almost two decades of pretty much nothing else but battleline.

RoperPG wrote:
I'm still hoping that points is a separate 'mode'. We know there are pitched-battle scenarios in the book, so I'm hoping that points are intended to be used solely for those; like a GW steamroller mod.
There are already a number of scenarios I enjoy that will be ruined if people use points with them.

We know that it's a separate 'mode'. That's the whole point of the announcement they made; it was emphasized that the points setup is its own thing.

I'm also hoping the narrative elements of the book knock it out the park so that people genuinely have pause for thought.

Yeah, because narrative elements totally will shut up the people who thought the game so desperately needed points.

I loathe those people.

Ive done to many to count games with no points, and to many to count games with using 3-4 point systems that people/communities came up with to balance AOS.

Bought all the mission/fluff books to recreate the missions/battles they had in them.

Needless to say the game does need points. Not for balance in general games (if I want to roll a bucket of dice I have 50 million other games to do that) but for the narrative story driven battles which I really enjoy.

Right now, its a "use your best judgment" which us being human fail pretty hard at, especially in games like this.

For me, this handbook release will make or break fantasy. I have Silver tower and will dump boatloads into it, but to buy general stuff for AOS play should this fail will stop.

I can go either way honestly.

I like points because it provide structure, that means it is easier to list build and easier to plan an army I want. I mean List building is a thing that quite a few people do just for fun. Removing some kind of structure to the game was a mistake to begin with but I don't necessarily think pints are needed. The same could be achieved with Wounds and Warscroll keywords.

I will actually play a game of AoS maybe I got alot of ooorrruuukkkssess or what ever the hell they are called and would love to use them. Points are needed for a reason, whfb could be played without points, but people used points because self balance sucks and is only good for those who like to abuse.

GW points seem to be designed specifically for people that like to abuse though.

GW point systems have always been awful.

And lets be fair... really any point system is used to abuse.

Even the vaunted xwing is primarily the same builds over and over again.

My biggest fear is AOS turning into what whfb and 40k have always been - using the same 5% of the game over and over and the other 95% of the game sits on a shelf collecting dust.

I got super burned out on 8th edition being nothign but level 4 wizards running around six dicing their killer spell and this being seen as "tactical".

 auticus wrote:
My biggest fear is AOS turning into what whfb and 40k have always been - using the same 5% of the game over and over and the other 95% of the game sits on a shelf collecting dust.

I got super burned out on 8th edition being nothign but level 4 wizards running around six dicing their killer spell and this being seen as "tactical".

And there were some of us Warhamsters pushing very hard to always take weird things, because we too understood the meta, but worked to subvert it. However we were certainly in the minority, and I'd be lying if I said I also wasn't fairly sick of the 8E meta towards the end. Players taking only Obviously Good Things is probably the reason I left 40k, even before the great unbalancing of the last few years, but I never felt that WHFB had attained that level of kneejerk, even in my bitterest moments. So ... I guess point taken on GW sucking at points, but reservations at lumping WHFB in with the 40k clusterfakk.

As for the vote, I will never not play with points of some kind, be they GeeDub's or community grown. But then I've also never not played AOS with points of some kind (even just counting wounds) already, with the exception of my first game, which was easily the least satisfying for both parties. I was fairly stunned recently when the local AOSers were setting up a game of 'bring all the models you have' - I mean, that's how I played 4E/5E way back when I started Warhams, and it was a brutally unfulfilling exercise then as well

- Salvage

 Boss Salvage wrote:

 auticus wrote:
My biggest fear is AOS turning into what whfb and 40k have always been - using the same 5% of the game over and over and the other 95% of the game sits on a shelf collecting dust.

I got super burned out on 8th edition being nothign but level 4 wizards running around six dicing their killer spell and this being seen as "tactical".

And there were some of us Warhamsters pushing very hard to always take weird things, because we too understood the meta, but worked to subvert it. However we were certainly in the minority, and I'd be lying if I said I also wasn't fairly sick of the 8E meta towards the end. Players taking only Obviously Good Things is probably the reason I left 40k, even before the great unbalancing of the last few years, but I never felt that WHFB had attained that level of kneejerk, even in my bitterest moments. So ... I guess point taken on GW sucking at points, but reservations at lumping WHFB in with the 40k clusterfakk.

As for the vote, I will never not play with points of some kind, be they GeeDub's or community grown. But then I've also never not played AOS with points of some kind (even just counting wounds) already, with the exception of my first game, which was easily the least satisfying for both parties. I was fairly stunned recently when the local AOSers were setting up a game of 'bring all the models you have' - I mean, that's how I played 4E/5E way back when I started Warhams, and it was a brutally unfulfilling exercise then as well

- Salvage

Yup, "bring whatever you have and/or want with no checks or balances" is not a good game mechanic. I remember when me and my brothers were just getting started in Warhammer. Three way battles between Dwarfs with Empire allies, Chaos with Beastmen and then Skaven. We didn't know how to build or balance the armies at that point so we just used what we had. Cue Ikit Claw decimating armies on his own thanks to Plague Magic (or whatever lore he felt like using as Ikit had a rule whereby he could basically use all the lores except the chaos ones, I think). The games were much more rewarding and fun when we learned to play properly and were able to build armies somewhat balanced against each other thanks to the points system.

 auticus wrote:
GW points seem to be designed specifically for people that like to abuse though.

My biggest fear is AOS turning into what whfb and 40k have always been - using the same 5% of the game over and over and the other 95% of the game sits on a shelf collecting dust.

I got super burned out on 8th edition being nothign but level 4 wizards running around six dicing their killer spell and this being seen as "tactical".

To be fair to GW, in AOS pretty much almost every unit is really good. Sure points can curve that a lot to where units will look better then others but everyone's pretty good

I'm sure at some point we'll try it, and maybe an event, so have to go with will try it at some time.

My friend and I only play games with points, mainly because we just text each other something along these lines:

"Gaming today?"
"Sure."
"Which one?"
"Game X"
"How many points?"
"Is Y points okay?"
"Sounds good. How's 6:00 tonight at my place sound?"
"Great. See you then."

That way one of us just shows up at the other's house, which has the gaming area set up and ready to go. Since I get up at 4:30 in the morning, time is a thing for me and streamlining is the order of every game. Plus, a uniform point balancing system is great for pickup games on the rare days I have the chance to go to an LGS.

str00dles1 wrote:
To be fair to GW, in AOS pretty much almost every unit is really good. Sure points can curve that a lot to where units will look better then others but everyone's pretty good

This argument has gone on many times, but it's worth noting that going purely by model count, which AOS RAW arguably does to set up a game (right? Sudden Death being the only 'balancing' mechanism provided, and one based around number of models deployed), is a points system of its own, except a truly horrific one where all models are valued at 1 point. I think a great thing about AOS is that every unit is pretty decent ... however when every model costs the same (1 pt), it was obvious from the start that from a purely competitive standpoint, there was even less reason in AOS (as compared to WHFB or 40k) to take anything but the best models. And it's a rare Games Workshop player that doesn't think of these games as competitive events with a winner and loser, even in the slightest, even in the language we use ('opponent', and so on).

Which is to say, any points system is better than the one AOS shipped with. That or a balancing system that uses no points at all - i.e. narrative play. To me there's no middle ground that makes sense (and as I'm not attracted to narrative play in the least, I can only support matched play).

- Salvage

RoperPG wrote:
I'm still hoping that points is a separate 'mode'. We know there are pitched-battle scenarios in the book, so I'm hoping that points are intended to be used solely for those; like a GW steamroller mod.
There are already a number of scenarios I enjoy that will be ruined if people use points with them.
I'm also hoping the narrative elements of the book knock it out the park so that people genuinely have pause for thought.

I'm curious which scenarios would be ruined by points. I am imagining playing certain scenarios with unbalanced points (a third more to the disrupter in the Ritual for example). I can't see how points would negatively affect a scenario but I am interested to hear your thoughts.

To be fair to GW, in AOS pretty much almost every unit is really good. Sure points can curve that a lot to where units will look better then others but everyone's pretty good

If you stripped out points in WHFB and the rule was just take what you want, then I could get pretty much anything to work.

Things become "bad" when their points cost do not reflect their ability. Either they cost too many points for what they can do, in which case they will never be taken because they are "bad", their points cost are accurate to their abilities, in which case they could be taken but are weaker than the under pointed units thus hardly ever taken, or they are underpointed for what they can do, in which case you always take those.

Listbuilding is often just an exercise in identifying the underpointed units and then maxing out how many of those you will take.

Once "official points" are in, there will be units that follow this same model, and slowly the internet meta-filter will trim down the 5% or so undercosted units to be what you primarily see in a solid chunk of your games (the more competitive your environment the greater size that chunk will be)

This wouldn't be as big a deal if "official points" were adjusted regularly with the goal of making sure nothing was under or overcosted. GW has never done that though. Typically once points are assigned, they are there until the next revision years later.

 Bottle wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
I'm still hoping that points is a separate 'mode'. We know there are pitched-battle scenarios in the book, so I'm hoping that points are intended to be used solely for those; like a GW steamroller mod.
There are already a number of scenarios I enjoy that will be ruined if people use points with them.
I'm also hoping the narrative elements of the book knock it out the park so that people genuinely have pause for thought.

I'm curious which scenarios would be ruined by points. I am imagining playing certain scenarios with unbalanced points (a third more to the disrupter in the Ritual for example). I can't see how points would negatively affect a scenario but I am interested to hear your thoughts.

The Trap, the Ritual, and several others where a specific party is meant to have a third more or less than the opposite party or where you have to put a percentage of your army in reserve or whatever.

Points are garbage. They really are. I have yet to have any of the horror story games where someone throws down multiple Nagashes or other such garbage. The closest I had was someone trying to cheese the system during a game of "The Trap" where they put down six minimum sized units of Darkshards and attempted to use their Assassin as the Assassinate target for Sudden Death conditions, rather than the Sorceress he had on the board.

Didn't feel like arguing so I just let him do so; then opened up with 12 Waywatchers and 3 Waystalkers on turn one, splitting Fast Shots to hit each Darkshard unit.
Killed off enough from each unit to force him to take Battleshock tests or in a few cases, outright killed the unit to start with. He had just the Sorceress left at the end of my first round of shooting. Won it via Sudden Death; Assassins are counted as slain if the unit they were in is destroyed. Since he had just the Sorceress left, he couldn't argue with a leg to stand on that he hadn't lost his Assassin.

At the weekend in GW I was listening to a couple of guys talking about how some unit was good in AoS (which wasn't previously). I couldn't hope but think that was because you are no longer trying to compare some opportunity cost in points, that with points you will be looking at whether it is worth it.

I would much prefer the sort of scenarios GW have been running at their events (in concept), where you can have so many models, but wounds (or some other mechanism) is used to provide an underdog with extra ways of gaining VP.

Whilst not saying that those scenarios are awesome balanced yet, they are IMO the best way forward as a basic premise. There is no need to discuss the pick up game anymore than with points - lets meet and play that scenario. No need to worry about points being crap, or whether a scenario benefits certain units due to Victory Conditions when points assumed a battleline (or one specific style of game). Plenty of scope for actual skill/experience to show for the competitive types, as you try to deploy the best force whilst keeping the martial strength down but have to do it on the fly as you see what the other guy deploys etc (makes it harder for someone else to design a list for you). The scenarios are in theory self balancing, just requires a bit of playing around to get the mechanisms/VP in place.

Points = bad IMO. Can't say I wouldn't use them, but very much against them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
I'm still hoping that points is a separate 'mode'. We know there are pitched-battle scenarios in the book, so I'm hoping that points are intended to be used solely for those; like a GW steamroller mod.
There are already a number of scenarios I enjoy that will be ruined if people use points with them.
I'm also hoping the narrative elements of the book knock it out the park so that people genuinely have pause for thought.

I'm curious which scenarios would be ruined by points. I am imagining playing certain scenarios with unbalanced points (a third more to the disrupter in the Ritual for example). I can't see how points would negatively affect a scenario but I am interested to hear your thoughts.

The Trap, the Ritual, and several others where a specific party is meant to have a third more or less than the opposite party or where you have to put a percentage of your army in reserve or whatever.

Points are garbage. They really are. I have yet to have any of the horror story games where someone throws down multiple Nagashes or other such garbage. The closest I had was someone trying to cheese the system during a game of "The Trap" where they put down six minimum sized units of Darkshards and attempted to use their Assassin as the Assassinate target for Sudden Death conditions, rather than the Sorceress he had on the board.

Didn't feel like arguing so I just let him do so; then opened up with 12 Waywatchers and 3 Waystalkers on turn one, splitting Fast Shots to hit each Darkshard unit.
Killed off enough from each unit to force him to take Battleshock tests or in a few cases, outright killed the unit to start with. He had just the Sorceress left at the end of my first round of shooting. Won it via Sudden Death; Assassins are counted as slain if the unit they were in is destroyed. Since he had just the Sorceress left, he couldn't argue with a leg to stand on that he hadn't lost his Assassin.

No offence, but that games sounds terribly un fun. Like...40K levels of unfun. Deleting units off the board with shooting. This is my biggest issue with no points limits, people just tend to take too many heroes that it doesn't feel like a large scale skirmish game but rather herohammer. I've had people who have only brought Mortach Manfredd, Vlad and Isebella, took sudden death then summoned up an army. I told him i wanted a 'propper' game but he kept on raving on about ''forging a narative'' or some such. Without points there is simply no incentive to take chumps over champs. ''Oh, all my Warriors of Chaos are Chosen this game'' ''Oh, these slayers are Grimwrath Beserkers this game''. Sure, certain rules encourage larger units but then sudden death totally brushes aside large scale games. I've found it's impossible to have a satisfying pick up game in AoS without points or a comp of some sort, because all anyone does is bring monsters and heroes and elites. If I wanted to see heroes sweep through hordes of lesser enemies I'd play Diablo, I want a table top war game not a dungeon crawler.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Points are garbage. They really are.

You are saying that you don't like points, phrasing it as the whole idea of them being garbage to add hyperbole. It doesn't help your argument.

What's more likely, that points aren't for everyone or that points are terrible and the vast majority of wargamers who use points in their system of choice are deluding themselves?