Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't agree completely. When it's a tournament people are trying to win, why wouldn't they take the best list? I had lots of fun at a recent tournament going up against the toughest lists out there, and it has given me something to aspire to (to improve my list and try and place better in my next tournament). I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all.

Even in a casual setting - if it had a good robust points system players shouldn't have to adjust as players of whatever faction should have ample options available to them. Still they might want to handicap themselves because there might be a big gap in player skill or they might want the chance to use army options that aren't fully optimised but have fun models/rules, or lastly they might know their opponent has a weaker army and hasn't had a chance to improve it yet (or that might be something the opponent isn't looking to do).

I have found the community systems for AoS to have been really good, but maybe the best thing about them was the ability to change when they got it wrong. (For example SCGT got the Fyreslayers largely wrong but this has recently been addressed, something that would have taken 5 years in the old Army Book system).

 Bottle wrote:
From my personal hobby experience, I haven't really had many games with an opponent whose attitude I would even remotely call toxic. Maybe I am lucky? But the talk of "TFG" seems to be more of an Internet occurrence.

Still, in a casual setting I would always be willing to add a handicap on my army if I felt the points system didn't adequately balance them. A points system can be a great framework for adding a handicap as you can give x number of additional points and tweak it from there.

What I think is better though is choosing a scenario that puts the player out of their comfort zone. Force the gun line into the middle of the board with objectives that need capturing - force the charging-choppy army to leave models back in reserve to defend from a "break the line" style objective.

A nice one is to make the gun-line the attacker in The Ritual or Breakthrough and the choppy army the defender. Not only does it keep the gaming and tactical challenges fresh, it also means the player can't always fall back onto one strategy in their list building like a kill-point battleline allows.

Thats because TFG is not real in a game where you pick who you play. People make him up to prove a point and try and make their point of view more relevant.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
From my personal hobby experience, I haven't really had many games with an opponent whose attitude I would even remotely call toxic. Maybe I am lucky? But the talk of "TFG" seems to be more of an Internet occurrence.

Still, in a casual setting I would always be willing to add a handicap on my army if I felt the points system didn't adequately balance them. A points system can be a great framework for adding a handicap as you can give x number of additional points and tweak it from there.

What I think is better though is choosing a scenario that puts the player out of their comfort zone. Force the gun line into the middle of the board with objectives that need capturing - force the charging-choppy army to leave models back in reserve to defend from a "break the line" style objective.

A nice one is to make the gun-line the attacker in The Ritual or Breakthrough and the choppy army the defender. Not only does it keep the gaming and tactical challenges fresh, it also means the player can't always fall back onto one strategy in their list building like a kill-point battleline allows.

Thats because TFG is not real in a game where you pick who you play. People make him up to prove a point and try and make their point of view more relevant.

Its ignorant to suggest that everyone mentioning TFG is doing so to support a view. I could go to any FLGS within literally almost two hours from my home, and if I mention "Old Man Ed" someone in the room will cringe. There are absolutely awful gamers, viles sportsmen, etc... who ruin the hobby as much as possible, and persist and follow the game regardless of just trying to not play against them. Some folks are just wired wrong, and if you ignore said TFG in my example, he'll just hover over, and ruin other games. Oh, and stores often won't ban or throw out TFG for ruining the fun of others if he's also a Codex-hopper who throws a $1000 at the store every couple of months.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
From my personal hobby experience, I haven't really had many games with an opponent whose attitude I would even remotely call toxic. Maybe I am lucky? But the talk of "TFG" seems to be more of an Internet occurrence.

Still, in a casual setting I would always be willing to add a handicap on my army if I felt the points system didn't adequately balance them. A points system can be a great framework for adding a handicap as you can give x number of additional points and tweak it from there.

What I think is better though is choosing a scenario that puts the player out of their comfort zone. Force the gun line into the middle of the board with objectives that need capturing - force the charging-choppy army to leave models back in reserve to defend from a "break the line" style objective.

A nice one is to make the gun-line the attacker in The Ritual or Breakthrough and the choppy army the defender. Not only does it keep the gaming and tactical challenges fresh, it also means the player can't always fall back onto one strategy in their list building like a kill-point battleline allows.

Thats because TFG is not real in a game where you pick who you play. People make him up to prove a point and try and make their point of view more relevant.

I know two guys who were very definitely TFG.
One collected FoW, 40k and WFB plus most smaller systems.
Retired military with a second gov't service civilian job.
He largely supported one game store that would have otherwise closed.
He would watch what others brought into the LGS and then go build a list to counter it.
Not an exaggeration. He did that with me and others multiple times.
And if his tailored list failed to perform (bad rolls on his part, good rolls on your part, something not going to plan) he would growl, slam dice, etc.

The other also collected for those games but was much more frugal.
Still spent a lot but used his armies for double duty (e.g., playing chaos demons in 40k and WFB).
His schtick was rules-lawyering to the Supreme Court level.
He became an opponent of last resort or someone to decline even if there was no other option if you didn't want to deal with it.
I saw multiple folks turn him down for a game when I know they played and had their stuff with 'em and obviously had the time.

Both TFGs were very real human beings.
Completely fine to have a beer with, talk baseball or whatever.
Get them behind a gaming table and the jack-hole emerged.
TFG is not an internet creation unless you count math-hammer/netlisting options they would have had to previously figure out completely on their own.

As an event organizer I've met a good dozen "TFG" in the past twenty years. They are not super common but neither are they myths made up to prove a point.

When it's a tournament people are trying to win, why wouldn't they take the best list?

This is true and I agree. The problem becomes that tournament mentality moves outside of the tournament hall and into the store's general purpose games as well.

 Ghaz wrote:

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 did not. Legends of the Old West and Legends of the High Seas used the same rules as Lord of the Rings in Wild West and Pirates settings (and one supplement for LotOW had a section with suggestions on how to use them for anything from the Napoleonic Wars to Prohibition-era Chicago.

I am sorry people have had lots of real experiences with TFG. As said before, I am probably just lucky.

 auticus wrote:

When it's a tournament people are trying to win, why wouldn't they take the best list?

This is true and I agree. The problem becomes that tournament mentality moves outside of the tournament hall and into the store's general purpose games as well.

Which can be fine too if everyone wants to play games like that. But yes, in a hobby of expensive miniatures where players may not want to change their list, or even if they do, is something that takes a far bit of time to get built and painted - players should be willing to make concessions in friendly games.

I also can attest TFG is real I've met him, we called him ratboy because he played skaven but he didn't play them right he had zero theme he just took three dozen jezails and some warp lightning cannons and sat on a hill.

No one really liked playing him.

Interestingly enough on facebook this same poll's results are completely different.

59 say they will play with no points, and 11 say only with points.

 auticus wrote:
Interestingly enough on facebook this same poll's results are completely different.

59 say they will play with no points, and 11 say only with points.

Thst makes sense. Most of the pro-aos'ers seemingly migrated over to aos specific groups on Facebook rather than stay on forums which predominately had an extremely hostile and negative reaction towards aos.

Deadnight wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Interestingly enough on facebook this same poll's results are completely different.

59 say they will play with no points, and 11 say only with points.

Thst makes sense. Most of the pro-aos'ers seemingly migrated over to aos specific groups on Facebook rather than stay on forums which predominately had an extremely hostile and negative reaction towards aos.

Meaning, across the hobby, we can functionally guess it's something like 50/50.

 auticus wrote:
Interestingly enough on facebook this same poll's results are completely different.

59 say they will play with no points, and 11 say only with points.

I think that has alot to do with younger people seem to like more freedom and alot less planning which is what I see alot of facebook being. Facebook has become alot of young adults keeping with highschool trends of groups and gossip. So in my opnion facebook would also be alot more freedom to do anything stop putting restrictions on me rebel on.

If you own a FB business page you can also block people and remove their posts super easy. Sure you can do that on other forums but it's a touted feature of FB.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:


Meaning, across the hobby, we can functionally guess it's something like 50/50.

I don't think that's a safe assumption, two random polls on the internet with less than a hundred people total is probably not a good indicator for anything, certainly not general opinion among players and potential players. A better indicator what people think about points is the failure of AoS as a brand. It's to the point where GW has had to publicly eat crow and patch in a points system after frequently saying they would never do that. There is also Kirby falling (or being pushed) on his sword in 2015, and/or betrayal at Calth outselling the entire Sigmar line are also pretty good indications of the hobbies thoughts on the matter.

On the bright side, now that points are coming, my friends and I have started collecting and painting, because the new sculpts are amazing, the rules are fun and fast, and we are kind of sick of 40k's gak. It helps that we can get things like the main AoS box for 40 dollars off of MSRP, because retailers are using ebay to liquidate stock eve if it means taking a loss to recoup some of their investment. We aren't WaaC or TFG players, we just wanted fair battles, without having to handicap, eyeball, or debate what is a fair match. This is also why we are looking at systems outside of 40k, because the current 40k meta isn't one of friendly competition, more like a prison shower scene. In fact most of the 40k players in my area are now getting curious about AoS so maybe points will be a sea change for AoS.

 Grimgold wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:


Meaning, across the hobby, we can functionally guess it's something like 50/50.

I don't think that's a safe assumption, two random polls on the internet with less than a hundred people total is probably not a good indicator for anything, certainly not general opinion among players and potential players. A better indicator what people think about points is the failure of AoS as a brand. It's to the point where GW has had to publicly eat crow and patch in a points system after frequently saying they would never do that. There is also Kirby falling (or being pushed) on his sword in 2015, and/or betrayal at Calth outselling the entire Sigmar line are also pretty good indications of the hobbies thoughts on the matter.

On the bright side, now that points are coming, my friends and I have started collecting and painting, because the new sculpts are amazing, the rules are fun and fast, and we are kind of sick of 40k's gak. It helps that we can get things like the main AoS box for 40 dollars off of MSRP, because retailers are using ebay to liquidate stock eve if it means taking a loss to recoup some of their investment. We aren't WaaC or TFG players, we just wanted fair battles, without having to handicap, eyeball, or debate what is a fair match. This is also why we are looking at systems outside of 40k, because the current 40k meta isn't one of friendly competition, more like a prison shower scene. In fact most of the 40k players in my area are now getting curious about AoS so maybe points will be a sea change for AoS.

AoS failing it's initial year was the best thing that could have happened to GW; it FINALLY got the point through their heads that yes, customers do matter beyond their wallets.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:


Meaning, across the hobby, we can functionally guess it's something like 50/50.

I don't think that's a safe assumption, two random polls on the internet with less than a hundred people total is probably not a good indicator for anything, certainly not general opinion among players and potential players. A better indicator what people think about points is the failure of AoS as a brand. It's to the point where GW has had to publicly eat crow and patch in a points system after frequently saying they would never do that. There is also Kirby falling (or being pushed) on his sword in 2015, and/or betrayal at Calth outselling the entire Sigmar line are also pretty good indications of the hobbies thoughts on the matter.

On the bright side, now that points are coming, my friends and I have started collecting and painting, because the new sculpts are amazing, the rules are fun and fast, and we are kind of sick of 40k's gak. It helps that we can get things like the main AoS box for 40 dollars off of MSRP, because retailers are using ebay to liquidate stock eve if it means taking a loss to recoup some of their investment. We aren't WaaC or TFG players, we just wanted fair battles, without having to handicap, eyeball, or debate what is a fair match. This is also why we are looking at systems outside of 40k, because the current 40k meta isn't one of friendly competition, more like a prison shower scene. In fact most of the 40k players in my area are now getting curious about AoS so maybe points will be a sea change for AoS.

AoS failing it's initial year was the best thing that could have happened to GW; it FINALLY got the point through their heads that yes, customers do matter beyond their wallets.

Yup GW admitted in public at warhammer fest that AOS did not launch well, so they are making more gains to support the hobby/community. Developing games to be played and good miniatures. Best way to get a company to change is their bank account.

It's true that you often learn more from failure than success, that's what my friends and I are betting on. They also have some things going for them such as having a blank slate when it comes to points, an advantage 40k never had, and a jilted but interested fan base. They have also solicited outside feedback for the first time ever, so it seems they are trying to get the points right, rather than just pushing something out of the door (*cough* *cough* Eldar).

That is an important factor that often gets overlooked in the AoS-points-will-take-over discussion, the situation is different. The comparison is often drawn to 40k and the unpopularity of Unbound, but that was adding no-points to a pointed situation. Here, points are being added to a no-pointed situation. How different that will be... we'll have to wait and find out.

Just to nitpick but unbound 40k is a lack of army structure rather than a lack of points isn't it? You still have to point your army but are allowed to forgo detachment and faction restrictions.

I think it's unpopularity is due to the ability to take very unfluffy combos in a competitive environment - and I think if 40k also introduces a Matched/Narrative/Open approach that unbound could sit in Narrative and Open play without complaint.

Moving round to Matched Play. I am really curious as to what restrictions the Warhammer World event has (or the General's handbook itself). I would be in favour of Matched Play being limited to a single Grand Alliance. Do we really want to play armies led by Archaon with Coven Throne's, Celestant Primes and backed up by Thundertusks? I also wonder how they are going to do the measuring - RAW the Ripperdactyl on the tall flying base isn't in range to hit anything or be hit? How will they do piling on top of bases too? Hopefully GW will see things like this need to be addressed to run a competitive tournament because two players do not want to have a disagreement over any of them.

 Bottle wrote:
Just to nitpick but unbound 40k is a lack of army structure rather than a lack of points isn't it? You still have to point your army but are allowed to forgo detachment and faction restrictions.

I think it's unpopularity is due to the ability to take very unfluffy combos in a competitive environment

Yes and yes.

Points still exist in every form of 40k's rules and people hated in upon it's introduction because no one wanted to play it because the army structure was the only thing keeping the absurdly bad balance even a little in check.

I'll continue to use points as a guide, regardless of how narrative the game is. Even if it's just "I'm outnumbered about 5:1"

Yeah the community rejected Unbound lists because the perception was only WaaC players would use/abuse them, and more narrative focused players would skip them and stick to a single faction or allied factions for fluff reasons. Amusingly it's kind of turned out to be the opposite in my area, the very competitive players want lists that they could use in a tourney, and the more narrative focused players have used unbound lists to create neat idea armies (like human irregulars in the Tau army, or a demon summoning loyalist chapter).

As for my concerns over the AoS points system, I think the points should be balanced around units and not models, and I hope they adopt some semblance of imperfect balance to allow for synergy, rather than some hard X ability adds Y points to the model.

I'm excited for everything except the battle line units. I run an An all soulblight army after all and I want to stick with that theme of Vamps and nothing but vamps! I would be kinda happy if the bats are like the troops for the Soulblight, but other than that I just want vampire knights and lords on zombie dragons.

 Bottle wrote:
Just to nitpick but unbound 40k is a lack of army structure rather than a lack of points isn't it? You still have to point your army but are allowed to forgo detachment and faction restrictions.

Specifically, it is just detachment restrictions.

Faction does not play into Unbound or Bound.

I think its unpopularity is due to the ability to take very unfluffy combos in a competitive environment - and I think if 40k also introduces a Matched/Narrative/Open approach that unbound could sit in Narrative and Open play without complaint.

Its unpopularity has nothing to do with "the ability to take very unfluffy combos in a competitive environment". I can take far unfluffier combos and remain Battle-Forged, thanks to the Allies rules.

Moving round to Matched Play. I am really curious as to what restrictions the Warhammer World event has (or the General's handbook itself). I would be in favour of Matched Play being limited to a single Grand Alliance. Do we really want to play armies led by Archaon with Coven Throne's, Celestant Primes and backed up by Thundertusks? I also wonder how they are going to do the measuring - RAW the Ripperdactyl on the tall flying base isn't in range to hit anything or be hit? How will they do piling on top of bases too? Hopefully GW will see things like this need to be addressed to run a competitive tournament because two players do not want to have a disagreement over any of them.

Just so we're clear, Celestant Primes cannot be taken more than once. They have a specific rule stating that you can only ever include one in your army.

Archaon, Nagash, etc do not have that rule.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
I'm excited for everything except the battle line units. I run an An all soulblight army after all and I want to stick with that theme of Vamps and nothing but vamps! I would be kinda happy if the bats are like the troops for the Soulblight, but other than that I just want vampire knights and lords on zombie dragons.

Maybe you'll get blood knights as your battleline unit if you only use Soul Blight. Varghiests are probably more likely the "unlockable" one though with bats being the default.

Yeah to be honest I am somewhat surprised how restrictive Matched Play seems to be from the snippet of information we have so far. SCGT did very little to actually "comp" army structure really.

Well, you reap what you sow.

The complaints about AoS were that it was TOO free and TOO loose, that there was no structure.

Congrats. You got structure and points. Enjoy it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Well, you reap what you sow.

The complaints about AoS were that it was TOO free and TOO loose, that there was no structure.

Congrats. You got structure and points. Enjoy it.

Er, thanks. Will do. I wasn't complaining. Rather, intrigued.

 Bottle wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Well, you reap what you sow.

The complaints about AoS were that it was TOO free and TOO loose, that there was no structure.

Congrats. You got structure and points. Enjoy it.

Er, thanks. Will do. I wasn't complaining. Rather, intrigued.

And I'm ready to love the feth out of it

Bring on the structure already! I've got Ogres to paint, need to know how many I should dust off and queue up

- Salvage

Aw yeah, can't wait to start fine-tuning my list and making tactical maps again like I used to in 8th. Matched Play is gonna be awesome

 Boss Salvage wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Well, you reap what you sow.

The complaints about AoS were that it was TOO free and TOO loose, that there was no structure.

Congrats. You got structure and points. Enjoy it.

Er, thanks. Will do. I wasn't complaining. Rather, intrigued.

And I'm ready to love the feth out of it

Bring on the structure already! I've got Ogres to paint, need to know how many I should dust off and queue up

- Salvage

You could have figured that out by looking at any of the Ogre warscroll battalions.