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.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
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.

Wow, that sounds like such a fun game...

Taking an army that shoots your entire opponents army bar 1 model off the board turn one is a That Guy move, no matter what you say. No game should allow that to happen and it goes totally against the 'spirit' of the game that AoS fanboys always go on about.

Of course it's a That Guy move, but so is running 5x MSUs of 10 models each and picking a hidden deployment Hero for an Assassinate target when fighting against an army with a shooting unit and a Sorceress that summons up a Vortex to get out of reach against a fighty army.

If he had run the 50 models as two units of 25 or 3 units of 15 or 2 units of 20 and 1 of 10?
He wouldn't have been shot off the board that easily. He would have suffered wounds and possibly lost a few from battleshock but he wouldn't have had the army basically wiped out.

 Kanluwen wrote:
"Not having any points sucks out the strategy of list building" is a ridiculous statement. There's no real strategy to list building in 40k or previous iterations of WHFB; it was always just find the cheapest thing that was effective and go with multiples of it.

I'm always happy to gak on 40k and it's lack of strategy, but I found a reasonable amount of it playing 8th ed, and it certainly was not just about finding the most undercosted options. Lets assume WHFB was terribad for a moment though, these are both terrible examples of point systems. A well balanced system, by definition, would not have under costed units to spam, and if people found something under costed it would only be by a little bit so why bother filling half your army with it when it is only a minor advantage at the cost of not being able to take models that are better at different roles, synergize with other units in your list, suit your playstyle better, or just have nicer models you want to paint?

"There's no real strategy to list building" != "There is no real strategy in the game".

List building with points? I refuse to accept the idea that there is somehow a strategy involved, because inevitably it comes down to "This unit is slightly more effective than this other unit at a cheaper points cost".

 Kanluwen wrote:
And to put things into perspective a bit more? It was known well in advance to everyone that list was going to be my first week list. The only people who were extremely concerned about it were this clown and his little buddy, to the point where they kept asking the manager what was going to be done to "curb the Waywatchers' alpha strike" which they had seen me demonstrate to the manager a few weeks before the league started so that he was aware of what could potentially be done.

I think the picture is becoming a little clearer here....
I remember saying waaaaay back when AoS first landed and this 'points are bad' argument started that an unbalanced game attracts WAAC players, just look at 40k.

Of course it attracts WAAC players, but it doesn't necessarily retain them.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Of course it's a That Guy move, but so is running 5x MSUs of 10 models each and picking a hidden deployment Hero for an Assassinate target when fighting against an army with a shooting unit and a Sorceress that summons up a Vortex to get out of reach against a fighty army.

If he had run the 50 models as two units of 25 or 3 units of 15 or 2 units of 20 and 1 of 10?
He wouldn't have been shot off the board that easily. He would have suffered wounds and possibly lost a few from battleshock but he wouldn't have had the army basically wiped out

So you countered a 'that guy' by becoming a 'that guy'? I thought AoS was a solidly built game that didn't have a problem with 'those guys' because if you met one you simply don't play them and shun them from the community?

 Kanluwen wrote:
"There's no real strategy to list building" != "There is no real strategy in the game".

List building with points? I refuse to accept the idea that there is somehow a strategy involved, because inevitably it comes down to "This unit is slightly more effective than this other unit at a cheaper points cost".

What about taking a unit that has smoke grenades and a unit that can see though smoke armed with a heavy machine gun so you can lay down smoke that doesn't obscure your own heavy hitter model so you can bow people down without retaliation?
What about taking a warcaster who has defensive buffs on a unit with stealth and an already high defense so those buffed models can get in deep among the enemy lines and jam them because the enemy didn't bring template weapons and can't roll high enough to hit them with direct attacks?
What about taking 4 units of 5 wolves and a couple of spirit hosts because while they can't kill anything, but they are extra deployments on the table which will draw out your opponent's deathstar before you are forced to deploy yours?


Again, you are looking at GW's gakky balance and saying that it comes down to "This unit is slightly more effective than this other unit at a cheaper points cost", but that has nothing to do with point systems, that is all about GW being bad at making point systems.

There should not be a 'more effective for cheaper points' option to spam in a well made game!

 Kanluwen wrote:

And to put things into perspective a bit more? It was known well in advance to everyone that list was going to be my first week list. The only people who were extremely concerned about it were this clown and his little buddy, to the point where they kept asking the manager what was going to be done to "curb the Waywatchers' alpha strike" which they had seen me demonstrate to the manager a few weeks before the league started so that he was aware of what could potentially be done.

I know you're trying to desperately back peddle here, but you're actually making yourself come across more as TFG in these posts.

So you knew how powerful the waywatchers were, but chose to play them anyway because no one said I can't!

You knew how worried your opponent was by them, but still used them anyway and played the biggest none game possible (literally it was over before his turn 1).

In this topic Kan, you've not given a single reason as to why points are bad. And further more you've shown how a lesser balancing system like 'models' (which you were using in this game), or the comp of the escalation league, ended up with a bent line-up.

Also, lol at you calling this guy a "clown". The fact that you feel it necessary to teach players a lesson paints a clear picture to me of your attitude towards gaming and it is certainly not one I consider fun.

Personally, not having any points sucks out the strategy of list building and the tactics of battle - and so makes the game largely unenjoyable for me. I like to play to win - even though I am not actually very good at playing at a tournament level. In fact I like getting my face smashed by players who bring better better constructed lists and play better tactically.

For some reason, I really don't believe you.

Cool. Says more about you than me.

Yeah, it does.

It says that I can spot a nonsense statement. Earlier in this very post you maligned me for running an army of 15 models against an army of 52 models and winning via Sudden Death conditions after the other player basically pulled the biggest dick move you could make during the first few weeks of an Escalation League and got wrecked for doing so.

If that was the "biggest dick move" all it shows is how terrible an escalation league with no real points system can be. Personally I think what you did to him was the bigger D move.

and, a "nonsense" statement, let's clarify here Kan, either you're calling me a liar or you can't understand the difference between getting smoked on the first turn by a completely whack match up (your game) or getting beaten because the opponent played better.

If it's the first, look me up on Twitter (@_devianttactics) and see me have great chats with my opponents from that event. (My first opponent was one of the Facehammer guys). I had a great time and was genuinely happy to get my face smashed because it showed me how strategic and tactical AoS can be (and gave me something to aspire to).

After my first game, I could see all the mistakes I had made both in my list strategy, deployment strategy and in-game tactics:
- I should have taken Handgunners over Thunderers as they would have synergised with my Freeguikd General
- I should have deployed closer to my board line to stop the charges from reaching me
- I should have targeted Arkhan over Nagash as that spell which ignores rend really hurt my cannon fire

I learnt from my mistakes, and got better and better through each game. I am still not a good player at tournament level, but it was very fun and rewarding to at least make some progress and play better than I was at the start.

Could your opponent take away the same lessons? Probably not. He knew how bent your list would be against himself (he even told the manager of his concerns). He tried to be tactical about his assassinate choice (with him deploying in a 24" square and you deploying on 3 flanks with 20" ranged weapons there won't have been many places to put his sorceress out of range - maybe he already made the mistake and placed her in range of a unit?) - but still you smoked him before he even got to move. The only lesson was probably to not play you again, and considering you are saying he quit the club not long after it looks like he took that decision.

Any game that ends on turn 1 is either because someone is a WAAC donkey cave or the game itself is a broken mess of a system.

It simply shouldn't be possible.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Any game that ends on turn 1 is either because someone is a WAAC donkey cave or the game itself is a broken mess of a system.

It simply shouldn't be possible.

Agreed!

@Kan, I can't believe you don't see any strategy in list building in Age of Sigmar. AoS is the most strategic game by GW in that regard (IMO) because it's built upon keyword synergies and the way different units react and affect each other on the table top. A unit's effectiveness in AoS is defined by the other units taken in connection with it. You don't make the best list by just taking the best units in isolation, and thinking then about how units relate to others and which become better as a result is 'strategy'.

 Bottle wrote:
@Kan, I can't believe you don't see any strategy in list building in Age of Sigmar. AoS is the most strategic game by GW in that regard (IMO) because it's built upon keyword synergies and the way different units react and affect each other on the table top. A unit's effectiveness in AoS is defined by the other units taken in connection with it. You don't make the best list by just taking the best units in isolation, and thinking then about how units relate to others and which become better as a result is 'strategy'.

I don't even like AoS and I'd agree with that, it seems fairly similar to Warmachine in that regard. There are some great mercenary units my army can take, but most buffs are for 'friendly faction' units so comparing them in isolation is pointless, because the in faction units that aren't as good on their own will range from still not as good, to on par, to so much better depending on what spells your caster has.

@Kunluwen

I for one see the over abundance of hero models as a problem, do you? People just never seem to be taking chumps, glade guard and clan rats and Knights of the realm unless they have some kind of synergy that pushes them to ridiculous levels. Because as you said, Heroes are simply more effective wounds wise then chumps, they do more damage and survive better and usually have cool special rules. There is no incentive in the current rule set to run large units or to not take the best unitbywound (for example Chaos Warriors/Chosen) ratio. A points system would remedy that undeniably, because the Chosen would be more expensive then the Warriors of Chaos.

I understand some people want to go back to the days of hero hammer, or that using your biggest models and coolest heroes makes it cinematic for people, but to me at least it doesn't feel like a wargame, it doesn't feel like warhammer. Maybe I'm still trapped in an 8th ideology but to me heroes and monsters should be specialist troops in support of the chumps, not replace them all together.

Would you not agree that a points system would help incentivise running chaff units that can be buffed up by heroes rather then just the most elite models and units you own? This is in the context of pick up games, because with friends you can just ask them to tone it down, but who am I to set a wound limit then complain about how the stranger fills it?

What's really funny in the debate on that topic is that it's exactly the inverse of the one we had at the beginning of AoS, when people in favor of points systems couldn't think of a game asking to play without them.

Honestly, I can understand people getting upset at points coming back, while GW did all that communication about points system being the "evil" that needed to be removed (you don't remember their blogs and articles in White Dwarfs?). It's natural some AoS fans followed them on that vision.

IMHO, I think points are a useful tool for pick-up games. Playing without points is also fine, but I would rather do it with my friends or experienced AoS players.

So I will probably play with both. Even though I admit I would certainly enjoy list-building with points more than without.

 Bottle wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And to put things into perspective a bit more? It was known well in advance to everyone that list was going to be my first week list. The only people who were extremely concerned about it were this clown and his little buddy, to the point where they kept asking the manager what was going to be done to "curb the Waywatchers' alpha strike" which they had seen me demonstrate to the manager a few weeks before the league started so that he was aware of what could potentially be done.

I know you're trying to desperately back peddle here, but you're actually making yourself come across more as TFG in these posts.

So you knew how powerful the waywatchers were, but chose to play them anyway because no one said I can't!

Why the hell shouldn't I play with my Waywatchers? I had a good sized unit of them from the previous Wood Elf books, what was I going to do just not play with them because they got amazing?

That particular guy got every Waywatcher I owned on the table because I had seen him running lists designed to stomp all over the new players. The max any other player saw was 5 Waywatchers(minimum sized unit) and a single Waystalker. They also did not ever get Assassinate chosen against them for The Trap.

You knew how worried your opponent was by them, but still used them anyway and played the biggest none game possible (literally it was over before his turn 1).

I knew how worried this particular opponent was by them, yes.

I also knew that he tailored his list to be a Dark Elf equivalent of mine.

In this topic Kan, you've not given a single reason as to why points are bad. And further more you've shown how a lesser balancing system like 'models' (which you were using in this game), or the comp of the escalation league, ended up with a bent line-up.

Also, lol at you calling this guy a "clown". The fact that you feel it necessary to teach players a lesson paints a clear picture to me of your attitude towards gaming and it is certainly not one I consider fun.

Yes, because it's great fun for new players to learn AoS against a guy running MSUs, Sorceresses on Arcane Vortices, and Assassins as Sudden Death targets.

Personally, not having any points sucks out the strategy of list building and the tactics of battle - and so makes the game largely unenjoyable for me. I like to play to win - even though I am not actually very good at playing at a tournament level. In fact I like getting my face smashed by players who bring better better constructed lists and play better tactically.

For some reason, I really don't believe you.

Cool. Says more about you than me.

Yeah, it does.

It says that I can spot a nonsense statement. Earlier in this very post you maligned me for running an army of 15 models against an army of 52 models and winning via Sudden Death conditions after the other player basically pulled the biggest dick move you could make during the first few weeks of an Escalation League and got wrecked for doing so.

If that was the "biggest dick move" all it shows is how terrible an escalation league with no real points system can be. Personally I think what you did to him was the bigger D move.

Never said it wasn't. I've said that he entirely deserved it.

and, a "nonsense" statement, let's clarify here Kan, either you're calling me a liar or you can't understand the difference between getting smoked on the first turn by a completely whack match up (your game) or getting beaten because the opponent played better.

I'm calling you a hypocrite actually. You're so obsessed with this bit of a guy "getting smoked on the first turn by a completely whack match up" that you're ignoring the fact that I've been making clear that he had been doing this to the new players on the first friggin' day of the league. His list was entirely designed to do what I did to him, just with a Sorceress added in to go onto an Arcane Vortex.

Could your opponent take away the same lessons? Probably not. He knew how bent your list would be against himself (he even told the manager of his concerns).

He knew how bent the list would be because he saw the potential after some of the test games I played with the manager and then he tried to emulate it.
He had been there when I showed the manager what someone could do using a fairly powerful ranged unit. We tested it using Judicators, Glade Guard, Glade Riders, Darkshards, Dwarf shooters, High Elf Archers, Prosecutors, and Shadow Warriors with Alith Anar along with the Waywatchers and Waystalkers.

If my goal was to make the most bent list possible? I would have been running Judicators with Gryph Hounds and a Lord Castellant since we found that was the worst setup for The Trap to be on the other side of.

He tried to be tactical about his assassinate choice (with him deploying in a 24" square and you deploying on 3 flanks with 20" ranged weapons there won't have been many places to put his sorceress out of range - maybe he already made the mistake and placed her in range of a unit?) - but still you smoked him before he even got to move.

He thought he could weather the first storm of shots and did not deploy his models properly into cover, ignoring the fact that we tried to make it clear that units can split their fire up as they choose.

The only lesson was probably to not play you again, and considering you are saying he quit the club not long after it looks like he took that decision.

Should clarify this a bit more.

He doesn't come around for AoS anymore. He tried his nonsense at some tournament locally and got stomped there too by some of the hardercore players. He still comes around for 40k with his jetbike spam Eldar list.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You're so obsessed with this bit of a guy "getting smoked on the first turn by a completely whack match up" that you're ignoring the fact that I've been making clear that he had been doing this to the new players on the first friggin' day of the league.

So what I am hearing is that this is a massive design flaw in AoS that makes it possible for people to exploit the rules and win games before their opponent can act, turning the game into a worse case of 'unpack your models, set them up, and put them away again without doing anything' than 8th ed or even, god forbid, 40k ever was.

You're not at fault, it's just a poorly designed mess of a ruleset. Right?

As always Kan, at this point in our discussion, I don't really care if you were being TFG or not and there's no more point going back and forth. Seems to me like you were being just as bad as him. And seems like you're not the sort of person I would enjoy playing against.

But, you've still not given a single reason as to why points are bad.

jonolikespie wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You're so obsessed with this bit of a guy "getting smoked on the first turn by a completely whack match up" that you're ignoring the fact that I've been making clear that he had been doing this to the new players on the first friggin' day of the league.

So what I am hearing is that this is a massive design flaw in AoS that makes it possible for people to exploit the rules and win games before their opponent can act, turning the game into a worse case of 'unpack your models, set them up, and put them away again without doing anything' than 8th ed or even, god forbid, 40k ever was.

You're not at fault, it's just a poorly designed mess of a ruleset. Right?

In specific, Sudden Death is a piece of gak rule that shouldn't be used, ever. And it's so obviously a piece of gak rule that I have never had an opponent opt to use it, nor have I when given the opportunity. Sometimes Obviously Horrible Rules are obvious, also horrible ... and also in our control. I mean for real, SD says right in there that you don't have to do it. A player doesn't even need to 'stoop' to house ruling SD away, they just need to have some self-control!

ALEXisAWESOME wrote:I for one see the over abundance of hero models as a problem, do you? People just never seem to be taking chumps, glade guard and clan rats and Knights of the realm unless they have some kind of synergy that pushes them to ridiculous levels. Because as you said, Heroes are simply more effective wounds wise then chumps, they do more damage and survive better and usually have cool special rules.

In many cases I agree ALEX, and this is certainly part of why I roll my eyes almost every time I come across a Stormcast report (roughly 75% of all battle reports for AOS). One, because it's the same army all the time; and two, an army I'm not very fond of (stylistically but also fairly uninteresting on the table); but three, because they're often packed with all these samey characters, or spamming the couple ranged nuke heroes (horn dude, arrow dude). Bloodbound often look the same, with numerous heroes and 1-3 token units of infantry doomed to evaporate. Though frankly with Khorne it doesn't feel as ridiculous as Stormcast, as Bloodbound live and die on their buffs plus reflect a warrior god's pack of fallen heroes hurtling themselves to their death ... Although any hero-heavy game, as you say ALEX, severely lacks the massed army feel that many of us got into Warhams for.

There is no incentive in the current rule set to run large units

There's a little - junky units get sizable buffs when taken in big and bigger mobs, buffs that affect single units are more potent on larger units, etc. - but if you're capping by models or wounds, certainly much less. I've been tempted to see what my old Skaven army does in AOS ... but I don't think the game can handle 200 models in any sensible way

I understand some people want to go back to the days of hero hammer, or that using your biggest models and coolest heroes makes it cinematic for people, but to me at least it doesn't feel like a wargame, it doesn't feel like warhammer. Maybe I'm still trapped in an 8th ideology but to me heroes and monsters should be specialist troops in support of the chumps, not replace them all together.

Can I recommend Kings of War here? Another simplification of WHFB, but that keeps all that troop-based loving you remember. Though fair warning, heroes there are so striped down that you may miss some of that Herohammer flair

Would you not agree that a points system would help incentivise running chaff units that can be buffed up by heroes rather then just the most elite models and units you own?

What also incentivizes running fewer heroes is to give a reason for taking units, beyond just points. Like all games include objectives to claim, and heroes can't claim, only contest. Stuff like that can help too.

As for forcing people to take chaff vs elite infantry, I'd be against it, but that's what a points system does, help emphasize the value difference between units. People can totally take an elite army led by a powerful hero ... but it should certainly be tiny (i.e. ELITE) compared to a horde of chumps led by a scrub general. Both the horde and the elite archetype regain their value from this new relationship.

- Salvage

Sudden Death rules don't apply to the vast majority of scenarios that GW has published.

Its a shame that a lot of people don't seem to use those scenarios.

Have they made a book yet that collects the various scenarios? Isn't part of the rumors for the General's Compendium that it will have a healthy bunch of scenarios in it as well?

A big disincentive for me and AOS scenarios is that I have yet to want to buy any of the many sub-faction or narrative books, which seems to be where the scenarios all live. Also I don't particularly like narrative-dictated scenarios

- Salvage

Nah, I'll play without points as-is. Inevitably points will just lead to the same min-maxing that goes on with 40k, making certain units and upgrades way too good while others will never see use because they aren't worth it for the points.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Nah, I'll play without points as-is. Inevitably points will just lead to the same min-maxing that goes on with 40k, making certain units and upgrades way too good while others will never see use because they aren't worth it for the points.

My experience has been that that isn't different to now. I think whether points are used is going to depend a lot on how the people you play the game with think about it.

pm713 wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Nah, I'll play without points as-is. Inevitably points will just lead to the same min-maxing that goes on with 40k, making certain units and upgrades way too good while others will never see use because they aren't worth it for the points.

My experience has been that that isn't different to now. I think whether points are used is going to depend a lot on how the people you play the game with think about it.

I guess that's fair, though I guess I don't have a lot of faith in the community at large.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
Nah, I'll play without points as-is. Inevitably points will just lead to the same min-maxing that goes on with 40k, making certain units and upgrades way too good while others will never see use because they aren't worth it for the points.

My experience has been that that isn't different to now. I think whether points are used is going to depend a lot on how the people you play the game with think about it.

I guess that's fair, though I guess I don't have a lot of faith in the community at large.

I didn't at first but I was lucky enough to have all the TFG's in AoS leave.

 Boss Salvage wrote:
Have they made a book yet that collects the various scenarios? Isn't part of the rumors for the General's Compendium that it will have a healthy bunch of scenarios in it as well?

A big disincentive for me and AOS scenarios is that I have yet to want to buy any of the many sub-faction or narrative books, which seems to be where the scenarios all live. Also I don't particularly like narrative-dictated scenarios

- Salvage

You can buy them individually off of the app. But yes the key part you said "Also I don't particularly like narrative-dictated scenarios" seems to apply to a lot of people I know as well. They are just looking for essentially a football field to square off against another team, and they feel telling stories and narrative is for RPGs not wargames, so they also won't touch the scenarios for those reasons (I'm not saying that you apply to that, I'm just saying what I've been told many times in the past few months when I try and get scenarios going)

 auticus wrote:
They are just looking for essentially a football field to square off against another team, and they feel telling stories and narrative is for RPGs not wargames, so they also won't touch the scenarios for those reasons

Naw, that's pretty much true for me. I just want simple scenarios to run my cool painted models against another player's cool painted models across cool terrain, that involve me making enough decisions to feel engaged, roll enough dice that I can feel the ebb and flow of Lady Luck, and pack up feeling like I did something worth doing. Standard AOS doesn't do that, but gently tweaked AOS can.

I'm not opposed to narrative play involving wargames ... but AOS isn't the avenue for me. Inquisitor or Kill Team has probably done that the best for me, though I suppose I'm showing my hand again (spoiler: I'm a sci-fi fan at heart, not really fantasy ), and neither of those games feel as restricting as narrative scenarios from GW do to me - almost entirely because I want to choose my own forces, dammit.

- Salvage

 Boss Salvage wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You're so obsessed with this bit of a guy "getting smoked on the first turn by a completely whack match up" that you're ignoring the fact that I've been making clear that he had been doing this to the new players on the first friggin' day of the league.

So what I am hearing is that this is a massive design flaw in AoS that makes it possible for people to exploit the rules and win games before their opponent can act, turning the game into a worse case of 'unpack your models, set them up, and put them away again without doing anything' than 8th ed or even, god forbid, 40k ever was.

You're not at fault, it's just a poorly designed mess of a ruleset. Right?

In specific, Sudden Death is a piece of gak rule that shouldn't be used, ever. And it's so obviously a piece of gak rule that I have never had an opponent opt to use it, nor have I when given the opportunity. Sometimes Obviously Horrible Rules are obvious, also horrible ... and also in our control. I mean for real, SD says right in there that you don't have to do it. A player doesn't even need to 'stoop' to house ruling SD away, they just need to have some self-control!

I wasn't saying Sudden Death was a bad rule, I was saying a game that allows for one player to shoot the other's entire army (bar one model) off the board turn 1 is a terrible game mechanically (since apparently the player wasn't the problem).

All this back and forth over Kan and that other dude demonstrates a few things.

1. In a game with a bad balancing system, min-maxing becomes a thing and players might have to come up with agreements for this or that, or just put up with some games just being zero fun,

2. In a game with a good balancing system, presumably we want SOME level of competence to come through in the list-building phase. I agree with Kan here, in that I've got no interest in a game where lists determine the outcome of games dramatically, but at the same time it makes little sense for that to have NO effect - if that's the case then you might as well play only scenarios with pre-built forces, or abstract games, or just roll a die to see who wins.

3. In a game without a balancing system, the min-maxing element basically comes down to social skills. This whole escapade with Kan and that other dude demonstrates that - if the game is reliant entirely on player agreement, then players who disagree either put up with crappy games and we wind functioning under scenario one above, or disagreeing players are drummed out of their group. A group of competitive types could drum out someone who wants to play fun casual scenarios or a group of the latter could drum out the competitive types. In the long run this might be fine if everyone gets what they want, but let's not pretend that the procedure is painless.

All of that said, as much as the 'player agreement' folks are mistaken if they think there's no unhappiness that can arise, the 'points are good because you can ignore them' folks are also mistaken insofar as lots of casual play groups are still conditioned by common standards from the community or the company. I gave up on Warmahordes Mk II because even though I have zero interest in Steamroller, it was just the case that most people at my store wanted to play practice games at SR, and weren't willing to spend time on casual play, or less min-maxed lists. It's not anyone's fault, mind, but it's how pickup gaming often works.

Until I see them can't tell you............

No system is going to be perfect but I hope its better than 40k - otherwise some of the fan made internet versions seem to work fine.

Yeah. The problem is "official" carries a lot of weight and fan comp becomes less desirable in the face of "official" points.

If official points is awfully balanced per their norm, its still going to take an awful lot of energy to get most folks to use something else, barring the SCGT still using SCGT comp for GTs.

When official points drops i plan on doing a comparison with Azyr comp to see just how different the two are.

 Boss Salvage wrote:

 auticus wrote:
They are just looking for essentially a football field to square off against another team, and they feel telling stories and narrative is for RPGs not wargames, so they also won't touch the scenarios for those reasons

Naw, that's pretty much true for me. I just want simple scenarios to run my cool painted models against another player's cool painted models across cool terrain, that involve me making enough decisions to feel engaged, roll enough dice that I can feel the ebb and flow of Lady Luck, and pack up feeling like I did something worth doing. Standard AOS doesn't do that, but gently tweaked AOS can.

I'm not opposed to narrative play involving wargames ... but AOS isn't the avenue for me. Inquisitor or Kill Team has probably done that the best for me, though I suppose I'm showing my hand again (spoiler: I'm a sci-fi fan at heart, not really fantasy ), and neither of those games feel as restricting as narrative scenarios from GW do to me - almost entirely because I want to choose my own forces, dammit.

- Salvage

While the faction battletomes are rather specific, I'd say about half of the scenarios in the realmgate wars books are pretty generic. That is to say while they are based on the narrative they work perfectly well as a stand-alone scenario. I'd recommend borrowing a book to take a look at them if you could, or snagging a battle pack from the app.

*edit*

Feth, I haven't been following this :/

I might play without points for the "narrative" games, cos you don't really need points as long as it is an epic showdown right?

Also, by this point (most) AOS players have got used to eyeballing armies to have a fair fight. So points aren't completely necessary, but I will use them 9/10.

Personally, not having any points sucks out the strategy of list building and the tactics of battle

The 2nd part is rubbish, points have nothing to do with tactics of battle, no matter what mechanism you had for choosing what to play with you have to work out your tactics. Points have no impact on that - you could deploy exactly the same stuff without a point system and play exactly the same game.

The first part I also consider questionable, points suck the fun out of list building IMO. Points make lists become a simple min-max system, rather than come up with an actual interesting list. The system they tried to do with choosing which models to deploy at the point of playing, where you react to what you also seeing the other guy deploying whilst trying to work within a system that makes it a disadvantage to put down lots of stuff or mega stuff feels a lot better. Much more strategy and flexibility and thinking about what might make your core force and what extra models to take to cover various things the other guy might deploy.

That said they could still do a martial strength thing based on points. So deploy up to 30 models and use points rather than wounds for martial strength. The more points deployed the more you give up victory point opportunities to the other guy. However, it moves away from you and the other guy making their own decision on what units are worth based on their own view of the current setup and experience and scenario victory conditions, and back to some arbitrary valuation which is forever argued about.

puree wrote:

Personally, not having any points sucks out the strategy of list building and the tactics of battle

The 2nd part is rubbish, points have nothing to do with tactics of battle, no matter what mechanism you had for choosing what to play with you have to work out your tactics. Points have no impact on that - you could deploy exactly the same stuff without a point system and play exactly the same game.

Whilst the last sentence you say is true, that's not what I was getting it. Nice for you to call my opinion "rubbish" without bothering to ask what I meant, but whatever.

Playing AoS without points can suck out the tactics for me due to the unabridged summoning. Any flank move or gap in the opponent's army could be plugged with a summoned up nastie to prevent it being exploited and there is no risk-reward in that. They didn't have to make any sacrifice to keep that Zombie Dragon in reserve like they would in a pointed system. Instead they got whatever they deployed with and, hey, a free zombie dragon to fill the gap in the line.

Goes the other way too. I have a Zombie Dragon in my bag and I want to summon it up as I see a good opportunity. Is that a good move on my part or am I just tipping the balance way too far in my favour? I'll never know because there is no structure that we were working under.

You can call it "rubbish" but I have played game after game of unpointed AoS and it feels soooooo tactically unsatisfying, whilst my games under points systems have been amazing.

Even today I played an unpointed game, and I could see from the get go I was outmatched. I don't really mind. The opponent was a great guy who just wanted to get all his nasties onto the table, so cool, let's roll some dice. I think I played well too because although being 95 vs 130 SCGT (roughly) I still took out Manfred, 2x Vampire Lords on Zombie Dragons and 1 Terrorgiest (another remained). But yeah, on turn 5 I was eventually tabled. Cool moments in the game, great guy, but yeaaaaah not what I would call tactically fun at all because there wasn't an even chance of winning and ore importantly we had no even framework to work with.

The first part I also consider questionable, points suck the fun out of list building IMO. Points make lists become a simple min-max system, rather than come up with an actual interesting list.

Disagree with Age of Sigmar. What's the best choice for General in an Order army? There's no one answer because with AoS everything you take has its effectiveness on what you take alongside it.

The system they tried to do with choosing which models to deploy at the point of playing, where you react to what you also seeing the other guy deploying whilst trying to work within a system that makes it a disadvantage to put down lots of stuff or mega stuff feels a lot better. Much more strategy and flexibility and thinking about what might make your core force and what extra models to take to cover various things the other guy might deploy.

This is what SCGT and Clash do but better. You take 150 pools (or 30 pools in Clash) and deploy up to 100 (or 20 in clash) live in your game. It helps you react to the deployment just as you suggest, but with something that scales ability much better than the 'point systems' of 'models' or 'wounds'.

That said they could still do a martial strength thing based on points. So deploy up to 30 models and use points rather than wounds for martial strength. The more points deployed the more you give up victory point opportunities to the other guy. However, it moves away from you and the other guy making their own decision on what units are worth based on their own view of the current setup and experience and scenario victory conditions, and back to some arbitrary valuation which is forever argued about.

Yep, sounds fun.

All this makes me think they should talk to the LOTR/Hobbit folks for rules design, there are some OP pieces, but on the whole its the best balanced ruleset GW has produced. Its also IMO the best ruleset they have come up with. the models synergies are (again IMO) better than anything I have seen in 8th or AoS because they occur naturally and not because "special snowflake* .. A battle line forms because its a good idea, volleys happen when needed. etc...