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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, you really can't. As bad as you seem to think the "no points" is, points is going to make it even worse.

I hope you realize lying is never good way to make anybody take your point seriously?

Points does not mean you can't play asymmetrical. That's a fact. 2000 pts vs 1000 pts is asymmetrical. I play asymmetrical games regularly in every system. Funny that all the systems have point systems...

If I can do it so can you. So can anybody. I don't have any special powers that make asymmetrical games possible within point system. I simply...Well you know? Play as usual.

Additionally, several of the asymmetric battleplans actually have built in limitations like you needing to take multiple Heroes and only a certain number of units/heroes start on the board at a time.

That has also nothing whatsoever to do with points or no points. Limitations are standard forte in scenarios whether you have points or not. No points doesn't suddenly make limitations possible while points remove those.

Yes, I will play exclusively with points. In some cases we might go for asymmetrical matches if the scenario demands it, but there is no drawback to having a reference for unit strength that is also officially supported.

So close to 2/3 will only play with points.

Thats about what I expected. The past year was an interesting experiment at least.

 thekingofkings wrote:
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..

Well for that to happen, they would need to talk to Matt Ward. It was his baby. Well maybe I shouldn't say his baby, all I know is he wrote the One Rule Book, so not sure if he did the other 3 before this one or not.

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.

people can only go by what you actually said, which was clearly that tactics in battle are somehow worse without points. That is patently wrong. If you didn't mean what you said then fair enough, but one only asks what someone meant when what was said was unclear to the reader - which it wasn't from this end, what you said seemed pretty clear.

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.

What has summoning got to do with points. If you turn up with a summoner you turn up with a summoner points or not. The tactics are still the same, he summons and you base tactics around that. Points might make summoners more expensive than other units, but equally you don't need points to limit summoners. And it certainly has no impact on the tactics of the game.

The lack of points or not has nothing to do with keeping a dragon back, unless I'm misunderstanding you again. Risk-reward in the context here is a scenario thing, not a point thing. There is a risk-reward in the existing scenarios involving martial strength and underdogs. You deploy your dragon and it is definitely around to do stuff, but you risk giving an underdog bonus to the other guy due to the extra wounds you deployed. Or you don't deploy it, so reducing your martial strength but now you can't be sure that it will turn up when you want it, or where you want, or at all. Your summoner might die, he might not have the range, he might fail the spell roll (often high for a big nasty) or it gets dispelled etc. In a 4 turn game that GW seem to be running with in those scenarios (and therefore limited VP to gain in many games) it is pretty big risk to assume that he will turn up when/where you want him in time to do something critical.

So I still dispute your argument that points affects battle tactics, it doesn't. You can deploy/summon the same armies either way. As you yourself point out it is 'lack of structure', but points are not structure that solves this issue - you bought the summoner and now you can summon the dragon. I assume that again there is something else you are not explaining here if you think points help?


Your argument seems to be entirely about List Building, and the opportunity cost of buying a summoner, assuming they are expensive compared to non-summoners as far as I can make out, but I may be misunderstanding you again.

Davor wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
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..

Well for that to happen, they would need to talk to Matt Ward. It was his baby. Well maybe I shouldn't say his baby, all I know is he wrote the One Rule Book, so not sure if he did the other 3 before this one or not.

He did not. Alessio Cavatore along with some others such as the Perrys were the main designers of the original strategy battle game.

Tellingly, none of them are still with GW

Davor wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
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..

Well for that to happen, they would need to talk to Matt Ward. It was his baby. Well maybe I shouldn't say his baby, all I know is he wrote the One Rule Book, so not sure if he did the other 3 before this one or not.

This is just my own opinion, but its my belief that the Lord of the Rings license may prevent GW from using its rules for any other games while the license is in effect.

It depends on the local scene, but the biggest effect for most will be that 'competitive mode' will become the default.
It won't matter. It's a wargame, so it must have points.
Points mean balance.
The official points.
And pitched battle variant C.
With open killing field in middle of table.
Because that's how you get a proper fair game.

For anything else to be the case will take a tremendous amount of effort in your local scene. I'm already seeing this just with the SCGT points. Once the handbook drops, it'll be identikit games for all. Yay...
Just to be clear, this isn't a TFG/WAAC/Neck beard thing.
It's that to get a fun game of AoS right now requires player communication and interaction. Competitive mode will take us back to the point where you could realistically play a whole game without talking to your opponent if you wanted to. Because it does all that hard thinking/discussing stuff for you.

I think in a lot of cases that is exactly the goal though. A lot of people *want* everyone to play the same way using the same scenario.

From various talks over the years this is because:

* when I buy my army i am buying it to be good at the default scenario

* I don't want to play scenarios that my army is not good at. This will require me to buy and paint more models to be good at those scenarios and I do not want to do this.

* I want to know that the army I bought that is good at the default scenario can get a game in at theoretically any city and any game store using the default scenario.

* I want to discuss tactics and list building strategies as it pertains to the default scenario.

These are common themes that come up in talks / posts.

We did a Lustria campaign in 2012 and most people were fine with it but some people seriously lost their **** because their armies were not good at jungle fighting, and they wanted to use their artillery gunlines or their all-knight armies which were great in pitch battle with clearing in the center of the table, but were disadvantaged in a jungle scenario where the table was covered in jungles.

And GW models are expensive so buying models just for the campaign wasn't going to happen. There was a lot of bad feelings during that campaign because there was no pitched battle.

I think overall people prefer not so much a single scenario as a limited list of common scenarios. I remember the d3 scenario chart from 5th 40k getting used almost all the time at my local scene, and my AoS games these days most commonly roll on a d6 chart from the comp we use.

puree wrote:

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.

people can only go by what you actually said, which was clearly that tactics in battle are somehow worse without points. That is patently wrong. If you didn't mean what you said then fair enough, but one only asks what someone meant when what was said was unclear to the reader - which it wasn't from this end, what you said seemed pretty clear.

Cool, well I thought it was clear I was talking about my personal experiences with the game, no harm done, sorry for not being clear.

I've played loads and loads of unpointed games and *to me* they feel tactically unrewarding. It's not just about summoning, it's about having an equal or fair chance at victory. In unpointed games I have often felt either me or my opponent have had no chance at winning, and when that's the case, it sucks out the tactics (or makes the game tactically unsatisfying for me).

An extreme example would be having 10 Archers vs 5 Terrorgiests. Sure there are "tactics", I could move my archers one way or another, one way might be a better option, but at the end of the day victory is hopeless and so it feels tactically unrewarding to me.

That is an extreme (and abstract) example, only to demonstrate that if there is a vast difference in the chances of winning - I don't feel tactically engaged.

(Disclaimer - I do not mean asymmetric Scenarios - asymmetric scenarios are fine as long as there are different victory conditions for each side and they both have a fair chance of winning them.)

What I am talking about is any scenario or game where I feel that one side has no chance at victory. From my experience with AoS, unpointed games of AoS almost always leads to this feeling whereas pointed games do not. And in vanilla AoS, summoning can be a facet of this.

What has summoning got to do with points. If you turn up with a summoner you turn up with a summoner points or not. The tactics are still the same, he summons and you base tactics around that. Points might make summoners more expensive than other units, but equally you don't need points to limit summoners. And it certainly has no impact on the tactics of the game.

Respectfully disagree. Summoning in Vanilla AoS is a way of getting free models, those free models can tip the balance so that one side has no way of achieving victory, and as I said above when one side has no chance of victory I feel tactically unengaged.

It's like playing Poker against a player with 4 aces in his pocket at all times. Sure I can bluff and raise all I want, but at the end of the day the player could just stick the aces in his hand if things aren't going well, so what was the point in me trying to play smart?

Might be you enjoy it still, but to clarify again, this is my personal experience and that style of play has no *rewarding* tactical decisions for me.

The lack of points or not has nothing to do with keeping a dragon back, unless I'm misunderstanding you again. Risk-reward in the context here is a scenario thing, not a point thing. There is a risk-reward in the existing scenarios involving martial strength and underdogs.

The martial strength scenarios has a points system under another name. I am talking about vanilla AoS. I enjoy those scenarios (indeed, I was the first person to leak them) because I like the structure they give. I prefer the stricter structure of SCGT or Clash however.

So I still dispute your argument that points affects battle tactics, it doesn't. You can deploy/summon the same armies either way.

I disagree. One player could bring the same army with or without points, but two players might not be able to play same armies against each other in a game under a points system (because the two armies might be of vastly different values). Does that make sense?

I gave some thought on whether or not to join the points vs no points discussion and it seems like a better idea to pass on it. As for the poll question:
I currently have only 2 guys to play with that I have introduced to AoS and miniature gaming. The moment one of them pays attention to the "official" points and makes up his mind that it is a more fair and balanced mode of play I'll sadly let go of AoS (which means they'll have to let go aswell unless they buy some minies as we've been playing with my collection only). I've been trying to cultivate a more free, cinematic and light- hearted type of gaming and when August comes and I see that they exhibit interest in points and matched-play I'll be introducing them to my Warmachine models and continue to where we left with AoS. I'm not going to touch on the whole side story about the upcoming competition between community system and the official one that auticus is being weary of. Suffice to say, I share his worries that people, belonging to a game club, that like playing with points and their own mods on the game will be faced with difficulties on continuing to play in the same manner with the majority of their peers.

I might play with points... but not because I want to. I'm a fan of people getting along and being like minded enough to play and enjoy a game they've somewhat balanced by themselves by not being a dick in the force choosing stage. However my group hates it, which I don't understand. But I'm always the guy proposing that rules should be x instead of y, points for said unit should be x instead of y, etc. Homebrew and houserule is awesome, in my opinion. Most fun I've ever had in the hobby was writing and playing a space wolf vs daemons campaign with my closest gaming buddy. It was cool because it was all ours. No one told us what we had to do, or how something had to be. Sadly I have only played 2 games of AOS without points, and that's likely all I'll get.

I like that if a player takes a list that decimate another opponent, it's "their fault" or at least it's on their conscience that they may have cheesed and destroyed the fun of the game. This is justified by blaming gw for imbalances with the existence points system. It takes away "how the player feels" about how the game went. It doesn't matter anymore because they were within the agreed points limit. It's not their problem. Buy a new army if your codex sucks, right?

Anyone who thinks gw will do a good job with this points system should compare the csm codex to the eldar codex. It is absolutely laughable that they would allow imbalance like that to exist in a system they apparently designed to balance the game.

I've played loads and loads of unpointed games and *to me* they feel tactically unrewarding. It's not just about summoning, it's about having an equal or fair chance at victory. In unpointed games I have often felt either me or my opponent have had no chance at winning, and when that's the case, it sucks out the tactics (or makes the game tactically unsatisfying for me).

An extreme example would be having 10 Archers vs 5 Terrorgiests. Sure there are "tactics", I could move my archers one way or another, one way might be a better option, but at the end of the day victory is hopeless and so it feels tactically unrewarding to me.

That is an extreme (and abstract) example, only to demonstrate that if there is a vast difference in the chances of winning - I don't feel tactically engaged.

(Disclaimer - I do not mean asymmetric Scenarios - asymmetric scenarios are fine as long as there are different victory conditions for each side and they both have a fair chance of winning them.)

What I am talking about is any scenario or game where I feel that one side has no chance at victory. From my experience with AoS, unpointed games of AoS almost always leads to this feeling whereas pointed games do not. And in vanilla AoS, summoning can be a facet of this.

That sounds like it has nothing to do with Tactics and Points. What you are talking about there is an inability of 2 people to agree to play a game that is balanced 'good enough' to enjoy, or even fix the issue mid game if it was obvious at some point that you'd goofed dramatically on balance. I find it hard to believe that having played so much you can't eyeball a 'good enough' game, so I assume it is more down to getting agreement between 2 people?

Either way it seems irrelevant to the point originally made. Given any setup, points or other wise, the tactics do not alter because points were used vs non points. Of course points do not solve your main problem per se either, they only work if they are 'good enough' for the specific game you are playing. With the GW history that feels a dubious assumption, and presumably will largely force you to play battleline or similar as that is probably what they will be based around if you want the supposed balance.

Respectfully disagree. Summoning in Vanilla AoS is a way of getting free models, those free models can tip the balance so that one side has no way of achieving victory, and as I said above when one side has no chance of victory I feel tactically unengaged.

What is to say that they will still not be free units? Points alone do not fix that as such (indeed if martial strength scenarios is just points under another name, and that doesn't fix the issue for you then clearly points in them self do not fix the issue). You pay for your summoner and he starts summoning. However, why does lack of points make them free units? On the one hand it sounds you are thinking you will have to pay for your models summoned (which I wouldn't assume is a given) and on the other are you not capable of discussing up front about what can be summoned, or balancing around the summoner?

The martial strength scenarios has a points system under another name. I am talking about vanilla AoS.

So am I. AoS is the rules of playing, the scenarios are the scenarios you play. The Martial strength thing is part of Vanilla AoS - you agree to play that scenario just as you agree to use points in a battleline scenario, just as you agree to simply line up and pig pile into the middle. The point I'm making is that points are not providing something that isn't already there if you want some form risk-reward type structure, you (or a tourney organizer etc) just sets the scenario to provide it.

I disagree. One player could bring the same army with or without points, but two players might not be able to play same armies against each other in a game under a points system (because the two armies might be of vastly different values). Does that make sense?

In context not really. The point was about the tactics in the battle, not what you could or could not deploy due to balancing. Points do not alter the tactics, in either system the tactics are the same for any setup, whether that setup came from points or some other setup (be it scenario or 2 people talking). What you are talking about is purely list building and balancing. I get that part, I'm not a fan of points but I grasp that if you like making points based lists then you need the points in the first place. I can also get that your own experience is that without points you have struggled to have balanced games. But that is not the same as saying points alters battle tactics, it just alters the mechanism on how you agree what models to deploy. There is still a mechanism you have to agree to (points or otherwise) and there is still the tactics etc of the game which follows.

Was one player beaten because his opponent's force was unbalanced or because the opponent played better?

@puree I don't care. What discussion are we even having? I don't know to be honest.

I find unpointed games to be tactically unrewarding because more often than not they are all but a forgone conclusion, and at other times they seem fair and then one player summons too much and makes it impossible for the other to win.

Yes, you could have two games side by side with the exact same forces in each, one chosen by points and one not, and the games would be just as tactically rewarding (why wouldn't they? They are the same).

In reality though (or in my experience) the games you have with points and the ones without points aren't the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Was one player beaten because his opponent's force was unbalanced or because the opponent played better?

Bingo! Or the worst feeling for me is; "did I win because I played well or because I used too many models?"

I think the thing is we all know GW points are usually always horrible.

And when people exploit underpointed nasty units in 40k or whfb, they don't feel bad about it because "those are the rules".

But if they take that exact identical force without points, for whatever reason... which is highly illogical but thats because it involves feelings instead of rationality.... it feels wrong because there was no structure to exploit.

Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".

I voted I'll still play without points. I like the freedom it brings, they didn't close any doors. With 3 ways to play, along with scenarios, you shouldn't play the same game very often. When I go to my local GW I'll have a list with points and a list for our wounds comp. I've been having fun with the game, including list building, (I never played WHFB) and this will not affect that.

I wont be able to play my Chaos Dwarfs with points though, unless anyone has heard rumors of them adding the two FW armies and monsters in with the rest?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
So close to 2/3 will only play with points.

Thats about what I expected. The past year was an interesting experiment at least.

It's closer to 50/50 than 33/66

Bottle wrote:
I've played loads and loads of unpointed games and *to me* they feel tactically unrewarding. It's not just about summoning, it's about having an equal or fair chance at victory. In unpointed games I have often felt either me or my opponent have had no chance at winning, and when that's the case, it sucks out the tactics (or makes the game tactically unsatisfying for me).

thats less to do with 'pointless' games and a lot more to do with organising 'pointless' games poorly. there is no reason that neither of you should have no chance at winning. And i can attest to that personally. we play 'pointless' flames of war. i've been doing this for 3 years now, and couldnt tell you the points costs of a single thing in the game. and yet, in the games we run, we always 'eyeball' balance and our games have pretty much always come down to the wire with some epic battles and tense engagements along the way. right now we are playing a pointless game based off of the normandy landings. and its going pretty well.

Bottle wrote:

An extreme example would be having 10 Archers vs 5 Terrorgiests. Sure there are "tactics", I could move my archers one way or another, one way might be a better option, but at the end of the day victory is hopeless and so it feels tactically unrewarding to me.
That is an extreme (and abstract) example, only to demonstrate that if there is a vast difference in the chances of winning - I don't feel tactically engaged.

then change the rosters if its looking like one outmatches the other. eyeballing things is a learned skill.

Bottle wrote:
What I am talking about is any scenario or game where I feel that one side has no chance at victory. From my experience with AoS, unpointed games of AoS almost always leads to this feeling whereas pointed games do not. And in vanilla AoS, summoning can be a facet of this.
[

Again, see above. this is less to do with 'pointless' games as 'pointless games' constructed poorly. And lets be clear, even in well balanced points based games you can end up in situations were one side has no chance of victory. warmachine, one of the very best balanced games out there has plenty hard-counters for example. it used to be back in early mk2 going against denny 2 in certain scenarios was auto-lose if she went first. one of the last WMH games i played i utterly annihalated my mates armies with a combination of greylord outriders (murder ponies) and winter guard infantry. all his infantry evaporated in a single turn against all those sprays and i won on scenario. points based game. supposedly 'equal'. truth be told he didnt have a chance.

Bottle wrote:
Respectfully disagree. Summoning in Vanilla AoS is a way of getting free models, those free models can tip the balance so that one side has no way of achieving victory, and as I said above when one side has no chance of victory I feel tactically unengaged.
It's like playing Poker against a player with 4 aces in his pocket at all times. Sure I can bluff and raise all I want, but at the end of the day the player could just stick the aces in his hand if things aren't going well, so what was the point in me trying to play smart?
Might be you enjoy it still, but to clarify again, this is my personal experience and that style of play has no *rewarding* tactical decisions for me.

then dont use it? Or place limits on it. One of the guiding principles of pointless games is the 'negotiation phase' where you co-operate with your opponent in building the game, setting the scenario and deciding on fair rosters. One of the biggest mistakes players make is assuming everything is fair game,all the time and under all circumstances. summoning is fine, when it fits the theme of the scenario being played.but it should be treated as an option, or as a 'plot hook' rather than as a always-in use 'go-to mechanic'.

Bottle wrote:
I disagree. One player could bring the same army with or without points, but two players might not be able to play same armies against each other in a game under a points system (because the two armies might be of vastly different values). Does that make sense?

unless its decided that one players gets to take more points than the other. this makes sense in assymetric attacker/defender scenarios or last stand scenarios. its how we typically run our 'pointless' flames of war games- the attacker typically needs a larger army than the defender. in real life it can often be 3:1 numerically. we represent this in our pointless games by the attacker taking more troops. if youd point up the costs,im sure youd see the attacker has a lot more points than the defender. and yet, it still boils down to very interesting games for us.

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I like that if a player takes a list that decimate another opponent, it's "their fault" or at least it's on their conscience that they may have cheesed and destroyed the fun of the game. This is justified by blaming gw for imbalances with the existence points system. It takes away "how the player feels" about how the game went. It doesn't matter anymore because they were within the agreed points limit. It's not their problem. Buy a new army if your codex sucks, right?
.

this is partially conceited. its not necessarily that players 'fault' that he took a gun to a fight and the other guy brought a knife. i often make the analogy in AOS where one player takes 60 peasants and the other takes 60 knights. the knight player is not necessarily the villain in the story either for wanting to take, or taking an army he has bought and painted.

GW are responsible for the balance issues in their game. they write it. its on them. that said, the player base is often equally at fault in embracing it.

Bottle wrote:@puree I don't care. What discussion are we even having? I don't know to be honest.

you started it by saying pointless games dont have tactics compared to points based games based on your experience of poorly organised pointless games. thats just not true.

Bottle wrote:
I find unpointed games to be tactically unrewarding because more often than not they are all but a forgone conclusion, and at other times they seem fair and then one player summons too much and makes it impossible for the other to win.

theyre a foregone conclusion when they're built terribly, but as can be easily demonstrated, this is far from an unusual occurence even in 'balanced' points based games. pointless games require good judgement, a bit of emotional maturity and co-operation. they're learned skills. it takes a while to get it and youll always be refining it.this is not a bad thing, nor is it utterly alien from points based games where you end up going against 'unknown' forces (for example, playing, or playing into a new warcaster, or using a new build. itll take you a while to get it down to the point where you can run it optimally, right? pointless games are no different).

Bottle wrote:
Yes, you could have two games side by side with the exact same forces in each, one chosen by points and one not, and the games would be just as tactically rewarding (why wouldn't they? They are the same).
In reality though (or in my experience) the games you have with points and the ones without points aren't the same.
"

they're different approaches but they are not mutually exclusive, nor are they zero/sum and both can acheive the same aim, and the same results.personally, i play both styles.

Bottle wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Was one player beaten because his opponent's force was unbalanced or because the opponent played better?

Bingo! Or the worst feeling for me is; "did I win because I played well or because I used too many models?"

my question is 'did we have a good game' followed by 'want to run it again, maybe make some changes and shake it up a bit'?

Mj445 wrote:I voted I'll still play without points. I like the freedom it brings, they didn't close any doors. With 3 ways to play, along with scenarios, you shouldn't play the same game very often. When I go to my local GW I'll have a list with points and a list for our wounds comp. I've been having fun with the game, including list building, (I never played WHFB) and this will not affect that.

this is a bit of a myth if you ask me. 'pointless games' dont necessarily confer absolute freedom, and there are doors present. they are entirely dependent on social accord and agreement, and rely almost entirely on the enablement of you by your opponent. in other words, all it takes in these games to fall down is your opponent saying 'no'. it might not be 'illegal' as per the rules, but there is every chance it might be seen as 'immoral'.

@deadnight I should have been a bit more clear. The way I said it made it seem like it was always the player's fault if he decimated his opponent and I didn't mean that.

Usually it's fairly easy to tell when somebody either rolled really well or pulled off a few brilliant moves that resulted in their opponent losing the game quickly and early, or when someone simply destroys their opponent because they purposefully hard counter their opponents force choices or just make an obscenely stupid cheese list.

What I was saying is that when points go out the window, you making cheese lists is all on your character. Unless your opponent is also down for a cheesefest. There is nothing you can point to that says, "I know that game wasn't fun and you had literally no chance of beating me, but look at the points costs of my models. I just learned to write better lists than you. Git gud nub."

Instead, without points, if you put a cheese list down against a noob list, it's going to be painfully obvious and you're going to know what you're doing the entire time, and the only justification for your behaviour is "my character allows me to not feel bad about being a TFG right now."

I'm not talking about the guy who thought 60 peasants was cool and the guy that thought 60 knights was cool having a game that isn't fun. That is a real problem with a points less system, and really could only be fixed through personal growth in the hobby and experience, and goodwill towards other hobbyists. Maybe a helping hand from a more experienced gamer.

The concept I was referring to, was about the guy who places down a perfectly normal list while the other guy slaps down the most br00tal cheese he can muster. There is no one at fault for doing so other than the person who knowingly created a vast imbalance in the game that was pointed in his favour. That guy is a dick, if the scenario didn't call for cheesefests, and it will be painfully obvious to everyone around. More importantly, it will be obvious to him that he did so and he did it entirely of his own volition and because of his character, not because the gw points book told him he could put those models on the table regardless of his opponents list.

I didn't mean to sound conceited. Clearly even a balanced game can be a complete crushing victory for one side because tactics or luck or both.

@Deadknight you are trying have the same conversation with me as Puree about if no points intrinsically means balance is impossible to achieve.

It's not a debate I want to have. Indeed, I even agree with you both that you can have a balanced game with no points. But it is so much hard work in my experience it never happens.

The two of you can pedantically rip apart my opening comment that stirred this if you want. I thought the "personally" caveat at the start made it obvious that I was talking about real and personal experiences only, and have gone out my way to reinforce that afterwards, even if you two want to continue to berate me. I am talking about my experience with unpointed games, and in those experiences the lack of points has in one way or another managed to suck out the tactics in the game for me because they have felt like forgone conclusions where my tactical decisions have no impact on who wins.

Yeah, my experiences of unpointed games were badly set up in terms of balance, which has shaped my view that they are tactically unrewarding. I could sit down with my opponent and do a lengthy negotiation to ensure better balance, but you know what? I'd rather just use points.

Furthermore, while I want to play a balanced tactical game, that might not be what my opponent wants. A lot of the time they just want to throw down models and roll some dice. I'm usually easy going and will comply. I can even have fun in the game at the "cool moments". I am not going to lie about the game not feeling tactically rewarding though.

And so on the flip side I really enjoyed going to my first AoS tournament recently because I got to play with likeminded opponents under the structure of a points system that gave us a fair chance of winning. I found the games tactically rich and really enjoyed them as a result.

Bottle wrote:@Deadknight you are trying have the same conversation with me as Puree about if no points intrinsically means balance is impossible to achieve.
It's not a debate I want to have. Indeed, I even agree with you both that you can have a balanced game with no points. But it is so much hard work in my experience it never happens.

Which is false.

We do it literally every weekend. [u]

And it's not 'hard work'. Well, it's no harder than painting or converting your models. Which is not really hard at all. It's a learned skill. It gets easier over time the more you do it. Being creative is its own reward.

Bottle wrote:@
The two of you can pedantically rip apart my opening comment that stirred this if you want. I thought the "personally" caveat at the start made it obvious that I was talking about real and personal experiences only, and have gone out my way to reinforce that afterwards, even if you two want to continue to berate me. I am talking about my experience with unpointed games, and in those experiences the lack of points has in one way or another managed to suck out the tactics in the game for me because they have felt like forgone conclusions where my tactical decisions have no impact on who wins.
Yeah, my experiences of unpointed games were badly set up in terms of balance, which has shaped my view that they are tactically unrewarding. I could sit down with my opponent and do a lengthy negotiation to ensure better balance, but you know what? I'd rather just use points.

You know, it's leaning towards (unintentional) intellectual dishonestly to state how pointless games are tactically unrewarding when you yourself say 'our games were badly set up in terms of balance and we didn't have fun'. Maybe it's a lot less to do with pointless games and a lot more to do with doing it wrong? When you do things wrong, and things don't work as a result, you can't really blame the thing, can you? This is precisely what you are doing.

It completely reshapes the conversation and invalidates the original assertion. In other words, your 'personal experience' of how pointless games don't work isn't true, as it's entirely down to how you did them.

Here's the thing. 'Just use points'. Well, fine. Assuming the points work. And when they don't (which does happen), you're in exactly the same position as where you complain about in the pointless approach. Points are not a magic bullet. points are fine, but it's not a zero/sum. The pointless approach can be very rewarding creatively if you ask me, and more than anything, it fosters a kind of 'pioneering' and intrepid attitude that is often absent in 'play by points' type gaming. Often, playing by points leads to a pick up gaming culture, and a culture that frowns on anything other than 'standard' missions and pick up play, and that is very unhealthy for the long term health of games, gamers and communities. In other words, it's fine for what it is, but variety is the spice of life, and you are doing yourself a lot of favours by also embracing the pointless approach

Bottle wrote:
Furthermore, while I want to play a balanced tactical game, that might not be what my opponent wants. A lot of the time they just want to throw down models and roll some dice. I'm usually easy going and will comply. I can even have fun in the game at the "cool moments".

Play with like minded opponents. Gaming 101 . If they want to roll dice and you don't, find someone else.

Bottle wrote:
I am not going to lie about the game not feeling tactically rewarding though.

you might not be 'lying' but you are speaking a mistruth(and not deliberately, I might add in case you think I'm trying to have a go at you). You are simply drawing the wrong conclusions from your experience, since the game not being tactically rewarding came about from how you built it rather than the 'pointless' nature of the game. There is no reason for the game to not be tactically rewarding. Again, we do this every weekend.

Bottle wrote:@
And so on the flip side I really enjoyed going to my first AoS tournament recently because I got to play with likeminded opponents under the structure of a points system that gave us a fair chance of winning. I found the games tactically rich and really enjoyed them as a result.

Which rules set were they using and how many people went to it? Genuinely curious here bottle.

 auticus wrote:
I think the thing is we all know GW points are usually always horrible.

And when people exploit underpointed nasty units in 40k or whfb, they don't feel bad about it because "those are the rules".

But if they take that exact identical force without points, for whatever reason... which is highly illogical but thats because it involves feelings instead of rationality.... it feels wrong because there was no structure to exploit.

Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".

Hm, I can totally see where you're coming from but my personal experience is different; I've had little problem getting people with overpowered lists to tone it down.

Actually I think that kind of illustrates the ultimate truth here; the success or failure of points depends on who one plays with and their willingness to make it work.

 auticus wrote:
I think the thing is we all know GW points are usually always horrible.

And when people exploit underpointed nasty units in 40k or whfb, they don't feel bad about it because "those are the rules".

But if they take that exact identical force without points, for whatever reason... which is highly illogical but thats because it involves feelings instead of rationality.... it feels wrong because there was no structure to exploit.

Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".

Well said. I will see if I can sig this.

If GW suck at making point systems the answer is not to remove points, it is for GW to hire competent game desingers.


Plain and simple, if they are putting out an inferior product is is on them, the manufacturer.
It's unreasonable for someone to buy a car and tuen be told they need to know how to rebuild the engine because as it comes off the factory line it has a problem with overheating if you drive it over 50 km/h.

this is a bit of a myth if you ask me. 'pointless games' dont necessarily confer absolute freedom, and there are doors present. they are entirely dependent on social accord and agreement, and rely almost entirely on the enablement of you by your opponent. in other words, all it takes in these games to fall down is your opponent saying 'no'. it might not be 'illegal' as per the rules, but there is every chance it might be seen as 'immoral'.

Sorry...I meant that them adding the points system while keeping the old way to play adds freedom. 3 ways to play and you can choose which.

@Deadknight do you play unpointed games of Age of Sigmar? (Do you play Age of Sigmar?). Yeah I am sure eyeballing FoW is easy enough, just count the tanks and the dudes with guns.

If AoS was just different flavours of Freeguild it would be easy enough. But this is a game where every unit has multiple special rules. A shield, sword, musician, banner and champion all do something different across units too.

Most of the time I am not sure what my opponent's stuff all does, and the same for them. In pointed games it doesn't matter as the comp has already done it for you. In unpointed games of AoS it 9/10 times leads to imbalance from my experience.

If you do play unpointed games of AoS, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you don't play with what I would consider good balance. I could be wrong, but I've never seen it done by anyone (even if hypothetically possible). Even as much as I love Matt's battle reports (and everything he does for the hobby) they are most often very one sided affairs due to imbalance.

The tournament I went to used the Clash comp and there were 32 players.

For me there is a difference between a fun game and a fair game. They're relative terms that are only linked by the attitude of the players.
Yes, if you're playing a competitive format, you need a structured system.
Eyeballing isn't easy, but it's not impossible.
Our local club is pretty much TFG free, but even then I see enough eye rolling at 'fair' games.
Without points, player communication is critical. With points, my experience is that it's optional.

RoperPG wrote:

Without points, player communication is critical. With points, my experience is that it's optional.

Indeed. The trick here is asking why it is so.

Without points, meaning without having a common base to work on balance, you indeed have no choice other than talk with your opponent to agree on making that "common base" and then balance both of the armies from it. It can take time (if you know your opponent or not, and so on) and work the best when everything is clear to both parties.

With points, there is a common base - the points themselves. They may not be perfect, true, but there is something already official and ready to use. You don't have to argue with your opponent about what to use as a common base. Thus the talking needed is reduced and you can agree on something else - the scenario, talking about others topics, and so on.

Talking is optional IF you focus only on game matter. Of course, both systems will never prevent you from chatting with your opponent, tell jokes and so on.

It's human nature. With 'official' points/comp, you'll slide toward the homogenous all comers tournament style lists, or the one-trick pony lists.
That's not to say that people like Bottle won't take more eclectic mixes, but that's what the majority of games will become.
Whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing will be down to personal taste, but I share Auticus' concern that if you remove the necessity of players taking responsibility for a fun matchup, then most people will take the path of least effort.