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.

was bitter about fantasy dying before, once the handbook came out, a buddy of mine pulled me back in, and since then both of us have convinced another 10-20 people to hop into the game as well. All in all: Glad to see 'fantasy' being played, sad it's a different setting still, though

Davor wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Or it's made the game more popular because it's actually finished rather than a piece of rubbish and isn't auto win for summoning armies anymore.

I can say the same thing exactly for 40K right now. I can say the EXACT thing for Fantasy back in the day as well. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers.

Now that said, are you speaking from experience? Has this exact situation happened to you?

You really can't because neither of those asks me to make the game have some semblance of fairness because the writers couldn't be bothered.

What situation exactly? I didn't mention anything that specific...

Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers. People will whine.

pm713 wrote:

Davor wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Or it's made the game more popular because it's actually finished rather than a piece of rubbish and isn't auto win for summoning armies anymore.

I can say the same thing exactly for 40K right now. I can say the EXACT thing for Fantasy back in the day as well. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers.

Now that said, are you speaking from experience? Has this exact situation happened to you?

You really can't because neither of those asks me to make the game have some semblance of fairness because the writers couldn't be bothered.

What situation exactly? I didn't mention anything that specific...

Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers. People will whine.

You said summoning. That is something pretty specific my friend. So are you talking from actual experience or just by going what other people on the internet have said?

Also I can and I just did. 40K and Fantasy had people who couldn't bother to make good/balanced/rules/codices/what ever the books were called in Fantasy as well and it seemed you have played them as well. You have people taking advantage and twisting rules so they can have an easier time of winning.

So again, nothing has changed, AoS didn't create anything new that didn't happen before.

Auticus is so right.

Davor wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Davor wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Or it's made the game more popular because it's actually finished rather than a piece of rubbish and isn't auto win for summoning armies anymore.

I can say the same thing exactly for 40K right now. I can say the EXACT thing for Fantasy back in the day as well. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers.

Now that said, are you speaking from experience? Has this exact situation happened to you?

You really can't because neither of those asks me to make the game have some semblance of fairness because the writers couldn't be bothered.

What situation exactly? I didn't mention anything that specific...

Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers. People will whine.

You said summoning. That is something pretty specific my friend. So are you talking from actual experience or just by going what other people on the internet have said?

Also I can and I just did. 40K and Fantasy had people who couldn't bother to make good/balanced/rules/codices/what ever the books were called in Fantasy as well and it seemed you have played them as well. You have people taking advantage and twisting rules so they can have an easier time of winning.

So again, nothing has changed, AoS didn't create anything new that didn't happen before.

Auticus is so right.

It isn't really. It's a general mechanic of the game and what you said was incredibly vague. To asnwer the question yes I am talking from experience.

You can't. Last I checked they both have points therefore an attempt at balance. Which I cannot say for old AoS.

Davor wrote:

 Rezyn wrote:

How has adding points changed the nature of the game that much in such a short time?

The answer is quite simple. Math hammer. Now nerds and geeks can prove their superiority over others now.

Also this quote in my sig should explain it.

Auticus wrote: 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".

Wow that's salty, I'll counter by hazarding a guess that people like fair fights more than waiving their metaphorical nerd bits about. I've watched dozens of battle reports from the pointless days, and AoS was awful, all of the scenarios were designed around the idea that there would never be a fair fight, and the scenarios were so gimmicky that sometimes actual combat wasn't required. AoS is a game, games have rules, winners, losers, and are played in the spirit of friendly competition. AoS is not improvisational theater with expensive plastic props. I get that my way of playing isn't for everyone, but judging from the traction AoS is getting after the GH I think people like yourself who were happy with the pointless AoS are in the minority.

Complaining about math hammer makes you look like you are angry there are better informed people in the world. I get that math hammer is yet another part of the hobby you are not into, but trying to twist it into some ego masturbatory thing that people only do to feel superior to others is so baseless that it says much more about you than than the targets of your remark. Also are L2P post a large enough issue on this forum you felt it necessary to turn your sig into a billboard showing your contempt for competitive players?

pm713 wrote:

The game was horrific. It took a negotiation to have a game that approached fair. If that was your idea of good then goodness knows what you think was bad.

*shrug*. Depends on the people, I suppose. I happen to quite enjoy the diy gaming that requires a bit of up front negotiation etc. I don't see anything at all wrong with it to be perfectly frank. I've found that this approach allows for a lot of creativity and for that, it can be hugely rewarding.

Then again, I'm also a huge fan of 'organised play' when it comes to games like warmachine etc.

Different 'itches' pm. And Both complement each other. Quite nicely. Focusing on one style of play as the 'one true way to play' (regardless of what style that is) does nothing more than limit your gaming horizons. There's plenty cool stuff out there. And to be fair, You might not be intending it here, but you are coming perilously close to the 'how dare you have fun in an unapproved way that I personally also disagree with' fallacy.

 Grimgold wrote:

Wow that's salty, I'll counter by hazarding a guess that people like fair fights more than waiving their metaphorical nerd bits about. I've watched dozens of battle reports from the pointless days, and AoS was awful, all of the scenarios were designed around the idea that there would never be a fair fight, and the scenarios were so gimmicky that sometimes actual combat wasn't required. AoS is a game, games have rules, winners, losers, and are played in the spirit of friendly competition. AoS is not improvisational theater with expensive plastic props. I get that my way of playing isn't for everyone, but judging from the traction AoS is getting after the GH I think people like yourself who were happy with the pointless AoS are in the minority.

Complaining about math hammer makes you look like you are angry there are better informed people in the world. I get that math hammer is yet another part of the hobby you are not into, but trying to twist it into some ego masturbatory thing that people only do to feel superior to others is so baseless that it says much more about you than than the targets of your remark. Also are L2P post a large enough issue on this forum you felt it necessary to turn your sig into a billboard showing your contempt for competitive players?

I dunno grim. The guy has a point. The sad truth is There are nerds like that. There are plenty selfish, self centred, toxic and entitled gamers who want to believe it's all about them, who only see it as about 'winning a duel' and will now feel empowered and enabled thst they can 'legally' abuse a game in order to one-up someone Instead of talking to people, showing some emotional maturity and collaborating on an interesting hook/scenario. Please note: I am not tarring competitive gamers with this (I am one myself). This is a tfg thing, and tfg's exist in every genre and every gaming style.

Games might have rules, winners and losers etc, and be played in the spirit of friendly competition (all things I fully agree with by the way) but this is not mutually exclusive with a 'narrative' approach. Some of the best gsming evenings I have had have been 'playing out the story in the spirit of the narrative' rather than trying to win a duel with my opponent. Don't dismiss it. 'Improvisational theatre' isn't a bad thing when it comes to injecting a bit of creativity into your wargames. Well, bar the pew pew noises. Leave them at home!

I am not surprised that an 'organised' approach to Aos is getting traction. Fair play - it'll be nice to see Aos generate some steam. Still not my game But it's nice for the aos community to see it succeed more than it has been to date.

That isn't my intention. If someone really doesn't like points I'm not going to force them to use them. I just think they're a much better system personally.

pm713 wrote:To asnwer the question yes I am talking from experience.

I can't argue with that my friend. If you experienced then it's proof. I thought maybe you were going off what others have said. But actually experiencing it, I can't counter your point. You are correct then.

Grimgold wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Rezyn wrote:

How has adding points changed the nature of the game that much in such a short time?

The answer is quite simple. Math hammer. Now nerds and geeks can prove their superiority over others now.

Also this quote in my sig should explain it.

Auticus wrote: 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".

Wow that's salty, I'll counter by hazarding a guess that people like fair fights more than waiving their metaphorical nerd bits about. I've watched dozens of battle reports from the pointless days, and AoS was awful, all of the scenarios were designed around the idea that there would never be a fair fight, and the scenarios were so gimmicky that sometimes actual combat wasn't required. AoS is a game, games have rules, winners, losers, and are played in the spirit of friendly competition. AoS is not improvisational theater with expensive plastic props. I get that my way of playing isn't for everyone, but judging from the traction AoS is getting after the GH I think people like yourself who were happy with the pointless AoS are in the minority.

Complaining about math hammer makes you look like you are angry there are better informed people in the world. I get that math hammer is yet another part of the hobby you are not into, but trying to twist it into some ego masturbatory thing that people only do to feel superior to others is so baseless that it says much more about you than than the targets of your remark. Also are L2P post a large enough issue on this forum you felt it necessary to turn your sig into a billboard showing your contempt for competitive players?

I am not complaining about math hammer at all. What am I complaining about? Someone asked how, I replied as to how. No complaints about it at all.

As for making my sig into a billboard showing my contempt for competitive players? No you are wrong. When I see someone say the truth, I think it fits perfectly. It is you who are saying it is aimed at competitive players. It is not, and now you are just assuming now.

I have to say I never thought I'd agree with Auticus about this, but I'm kinda disappointed that matched play has become the default. Yes, I agree that AoS before was lacking something and was way too easy to abuse by just taking whatever you wanted, but I find matched play to be very restrictive. I've found too at my GW that matched play is now the default, and people are reluctant to play without using the points in the book. I don't mind that if we were doing a tournament or something, but as someone who bought a boxed set and really likes the battalion info that's in it, I'm kinda sad that I can't use my army as I wanted to because it has no points. Maybe I can find someone who will let me just use it, but it's doubtful and when I asked at the shop everyone was pretty much "Yeah, we only uses Matched Play now".

I think points are great to have in a system, don't get me wrong. But I feel that if you're playing a casual or narrative/themed game it's much easier to use a more open format instead, because it's a casual game as long as nobody is trying to blatantly min/max. A tournament or structured league with points, sure I get using points for that because you want things to be as "even" as possible.

I'm going to try to broach the idea of an in-store narrative campaign, maybe in the Fall, and I hope that I can convince people NOT to use matched play for it but basically have some etiquette guidelines. What initially attracted me to AoS, even though I knew the GH was coming out, was the idea of being able to very heavily flavor and style an army without having points hindering that. An all cavalry force, or a force specifically created for a specific narrative/fluff purpose, for example, which points often don't allow by requiring things.

In my case, I wanted a horde of ghouls backed up by some harder dudes. I can still do that to a point, but since matched play forces me to take Battleline units, I can't have a huge blob of ghouls right now. because reasons. I can't say I like that.

 auticus wrote:

Now we have both, no one is forced to use the points if you want to play the open way.

It is indeed what the vast majority wanted. But it also does lead to min/maxing very much as thats the nature of the beast.

You can't min/max without points so when there were no points it was basically eyeball it but there was no efficiency coefficient to gauge because there were no limits.

As a horde player, I don't think I really agree with this. even with open play, there's no real incentive to take weaker-yet-similar units. Skaven slaves are worse then Clanrats, Clanrats are worse then Stormvermin, Night runners are worse then Gutter runners, etc.

With wounds as the basic model cost, these similar units clearly have one that is the better choice, and one that is worse. The only reason to take the weaker units in open play is for fluff reasons, while with points there's an actual in-game tactical reason to take cheaper units.

Now this Isn't always the case in open play. Other units do bring different skills to the table, so I would venture that there are reasons to take either Poison wind Globadiers vs. Jezzails, or Warp-fire Throwers vs. Rattling guns, for example. They offer different rules depending on what your opponent has. (say against a Warriors of Chaos heavy army with rune shields giving saves vs. Mortal wounds. one weapon is better against them, another against Seraphon.)

In theory points would level all that out for weaker vs. stronger units, and cause the player to think about a well-rounded army when it comes to choosing similar-yet-different units.

In theory yes. In practice, I have found no.

I'm working on publishing the statistical analysis of my azyr comp into graph format to graphically display the raw output and defensive capabilities of scrolls and show how they are "efficient" or not by how many points you pay per point of damage / longevity.

I find that the vast majority of everyone I have ever met in twenty years tend to always pull troops from the higher end of the graph, and typically the large chunk of armies that are over represented have the most of these.

Points *should* be used for balance, but GW points have never done a good job at this at all, and the current GHB/SCGT points are better than past GW attempts, but still fall short in many ways in regards to over powered / most efficient units for the points cost unfortunately.

A week or so into "official points" being a thing and the great exodus to the most efficient units being over represented on every table in the store has already begun with earnest here. Newer players with khorne armies are unloading them for stormcast. Stormfiends are everywhere in just about every chaos army regardless of chaos type. These things were expected.

As to matched play being default mode, thats how any game is at least in the US. Pick a game. If you see it in an FLGS its likely the players are following competitive event standards for their pick up games.

Getting people to do narrative / non point games is like getting them to do unbound 40k. Yes you can find someone to do that but you are going to have to put in a ton of work finding that person and it also often leads to receiving some flak/disdain from your community if its done in public.

I agree auticus (funny how I've done a 180 eh?). For AoS I'd rather, outside of a tournament setting, just talk and come up with something cool that works well enough and is flavorful. But it's my experience as well that people are like "Oh points! Only points or nothing now!" and I don't care for that right now.

I just meant I always saw that, even in open play. Most players would just grab the gold and field it, There really is no reasons to use Clanrats over Stormvermin, unless you don't own them.

I really feel that open play really culled horde lists, goblin armies, Clan Morrs, lots of empire troops etc. became moot.

I played a lot with both my eshin lists and my Clan Morrs list (what my army has always been built around,) and it always felt weird to handicap myself by taking clearly inferior units.

Its ok to change positions over time gods know I've done the same!

I don't mind points so much as I mind having to face the same type of armies every game on the same type of tables using the same scenarios. Points are a thing that I'm just used to.

However I would also not be against coming up wtih something cool with a like minded opponent and doing a narrative that tells a story that is something other than "lord a**kicker and his most efficient units took on lord smash-you-in-the-mouth with his most efficient units in another pitched battle".

I really feel that open play really culled horde lists, goblin armies, Clan Morrs, lots of empire troops etc. became moot.

I wish we had a better way to gauge global tendencies, but I'm finding even with points no one is using hordes. Why use hordes and have to paint all that up when you can just take 1/5 of that and a lot under the new "official points" are highly cost efficient!

 auticus wrote:
Its ok to change positions over time gods know I've done the same!

I don't mind points so much as I mind having to face the same type of armies every game on the same type of tables using the same scenarios. Points are a thing that I'm just used to.

However I would also not be against coming up wtih something cool with a like minded opponent and doing a narrative that tells a story that is something other than "lord a**kicker and his most efficient units took on lord smash-you-in-the-mouth with his most efficient units in another pitched battle".

I really feel that open play really culled horde lists, goblin armies, Clan Morrs, lots of empire troops etc. became moot.

I wish we had a better way to gauge global tendencies, but I'm finding even with points no one is using hordes. Why use hordes and have to paint all that up when you can just take 1/5 of that and a lot under the new "official points" are highly cost efficient!

Well for me, I had already painted up 13,000 points of skaven, with at least three of every unit available to the army. With AoS I can field a different army about 20 times in a row, haha.

I do love the more narrative driven games, although dropping a 1,500 point army of Skryre guns can be fun, I much rather prefer the more subtle units, all the clans have a hreat variety of modest-powered units. (giant rats, Night/Gutter runners, Plague/censor bearers, etc.)


I'm really excited to try out how my Clan Morrs list does with the new rules. slaves, Clansrats, Stormvermin, backed up by a little of everything else that's small. I'm also curious to see if horde armies make a return, and if they are viable builds.

pm713 wrote:That isn't my intention. If someone really doesn't like points I'm not going to force them to use them. I just think they're a much better system personally.

To be fair to you, I didn’t think it was your intention at all either, PM. But it did come across that way. Internet and tone is my guess.

Regarding points as a ‘better system’, I don’t necessarily agree or disagree. My favourite wargames - warmachine/hordes, infinity and weirdly, Lord of the rings sbg are all points-based games.Points can be a good system. With caveats. Points are a good system, when they’re well implemented. However, there are plenty bad ways to implement points, which begs the question – is it ‘points’ that are the good thing, or ‘the implementation’? If it’s ‘the implementation’ that is really what makes stuff work, then surely this can be translated over to other non-point-based systems that assign in-game value/structure? I mean, surely ‘eyeballing’ games for balance is just as good, if you implement it well, for example? A good structure is a good structure is a good structure, regardless of its components or shape. What makes points objectively ‘better’? I mean, when they’re done poorly, they’re terrible game-destroying things. At the end of the day it’s just a language/metric for assigning value and structure to stuff in a game, and there are other ways of doing that as well. And it must be realised points don’t work in isolation – a good points system needs a lot of load-bearing supporting structures to hold it up, and carry its weight and even then, the whole thing can be stressed, can creak and groan, and quite often there can be issues and fault lines. Narrative games are no different – they require different supporting structures to hold them up as well-often, a bit of cop-on, emotional maturity and other soft social skills that act as a shock absorber). Neither is necessarily ‘better’ if you ask me.

I think a lot of people, especially younger players and most especially those who ‘graduated’ through the school of GW think points are better for the simple reason it’s what (often, it's all) they’ve been exposed to, it’s a language/concept/world view they understand and are familiar with. And other ways of playing are ‘alien’ and ‘different’ and if it’s not something you’ve been exposed to, you can’t really empathise with it, or see its value, or how to make it work, hence the mental block that seems to come even with the idea of ‘not playing with points’. It amuses me how inconceivable and insurmountable it is to some people, when I’m quite happy to just get on with it and can it work to the point where it’s almost second nature to me now. Too many people are too set in their ways (how often to I say that player inertia is one of the biggest problems we have as a subculture), and would rather wallow in what makes them miserable, because its familiar, rather than be proactive, step out of their own self-imposed mental prisons, and try and do something different/something they’re not used to even if it would make things better. It boils down to ‘blind faith’ in their invisible ‘god’. With ‘points’ being that god. And that’s blind faith that simply cannot be questioned, (or for the true believers, even reasoned with). It’s an absolute. Points are unquestionable. They’re law. Points have to work, because surely there can’t be anything else, and every other way must be bad. And you can’t ever turn away from them. And you are a bad person for believing in something different. Because faith in ‘almighty points’. We all have real life examples of this too – this is not some abstract concept. This is just human nature.

I simply do not see points/narrative it as either/or. Or better/worse. From experience with both, both have value. The narrative/collaboration approach has just as much merit, if you ask me, and whilst it’s an approach with its own hurdles (and again, points-based games have theirs too) I do know people who grew up with the collaboration/narrative approach (it’s quite common in historicals, and amongst older players for example) for whom it’s just the go-to thing that they do, and it works seamlessly, and points are to them, just a really strange idea that doesn’t/wouldn’t necessarily add anything to the games they play.

Unfortunately, there is an all too common narrative out there of ‘how the hell can people have fun in collaborating in game-building, and negotiating in terms of what they’d like to play. I don’t play that way, and can’t conceive how it could even work! That’s just horrible!’ You said it yourself, however unintentionally - It took a negotiation to have a game that approached fair. If that was your idea of good then goodness knows what you think was bad. It’s not even ‘I prefer points’. It wasn’t even about having different preferences. Whether you intended it or not (and as you say, you didn’t) but your point was still kind of sneering between the letters in saying that having/wanting to talk with your opponent about game building is this horrifyingly bad thing (despite some of the best gaming advice out there being ‘play with like minded people’). I mean, really – how bad is having a chat about something for the sake of fairness and building an enjoyable game? Really? ‘mate, can we leave the ‘over 9000’ stuff at home for once and just field some of the more basic units for once?’ Is it so incomprehensible to play your mate’s scenario/theme this time, and do yours the next? Is it so difficult to say ‘sure, lets try it that way and see what happens’? or how about trying to tailor or theme a game between mates. You don’t need to have the ‘over 9000’ stuff to have fun – even if it’s just tac.squads raiding a facility defended by IG platoons and sentinels, there is a lot of scope there for fun games, and it’s fun to leave the power pieces at home, and let other stuff take the spotlight every now and then if you ask me. Your post, however unintentional you may have been in writing it, tries to dismiss and devalue that whole entire viewpoint by questioning the ‘values’ of,its adherents – again, having a chat about the type of game you want to play is 'bad', because its something you don’t like, therefore its objectively wrong, and they must be bad people with no value or legitimacy to their viewpoint. Too often you see people waxing hysterically about how wargames ‘should’ be played, shout self-righteous cries of what the ‘right’ way is to have fun, and essentially saying that doing anything else is having fun wrong. People almost don’t want to accept that others can and will have fun doing something different to how they think things ‘should’ be done. Its inconceivable. It’s almost like a huge and deliberate mental block. And the hysterics that follow when people cannot comprehend how people (sometimes effortlessly) do, and enjoy things that they themselves cannot, or rather, refuse to grasp. Sometimes it seems to be that people would rather not know, rather than explore and experience, and then complain endlessly, because it legitimises their preconceived and predetermined viewpoints of how things ‘should’ be. I’d rather challenge myself. AOS crystalized this conflict in a lot of ways, which is why I’ve found these debates on the ‘philosophy’ behind wargames so interesting and why I’ve been trying to portray how the narrative-focused game is both complimentary to organised play, can be very empowering and helps scratch that creative ‘itch’ that PUGs simply don’t do. And often, it’s an itch that people didn’t realise they had. For a lot of people, and especially those whose ‘gaming upbringing’ is almost total and exclusive immersion in ‘pick-up’ style gaming, there is a sense of ‘system shock’, ‘disbelief’ and sometimes ‘complete incomprehension’ that there are styles of play other than points-based pick-up games and that people not only make them work for them, but have fun doing it. And that they aren’t dicks about it either. The usual narrative of squeezing all the power out of your points is absent, the usual ‘problems’ of overpowered/underpowered are often sidestepped and quietly shrugged away and there is a far bigger onus on emotional maturity, and collaboration, so its often that ‘it’s on you’ is an ‘alien’ concept. Amusingly, there is often an incomprehension around how ‘what’s stopping me being a dick?’, which should surely be self-evident common courtesy and decency. You shouldn't need to be told this. I mean, if your first thoughts lean towards bellendery, points won’t necessarily stop you either. In fact, a poor points-system with enable you. All of a sudden, the players find that they themselves are the limiting factor and are what are getting in the way of good games, and part of me wonders if folks simply don’t like to see and acknowledge this, and therefore see themselves in an unflattering light, and would rather handwave away their own personal responsibility to their opponent (and themselves), and often their embracing of the faults of the game rather than step up to the plate themselves and make the game what they want it to be. Like I said, there are plenty lazy, selfish, self-centred and entitled players out there who complain about cheese, but simultaneously embrace that same cheese wholeheartedly and happily inflict it on everyone else, blame the ‘big bad’ for this instead, disavow any personal responsibility, then complain endlessly about everything wrong with their hobby, (but yet won’t do anything proactive themselves to change things or improve things,) and then scoff at any other approaches (even like ‘talk to you opponent…’) that would make their games better as somehow being illegitimate or unworkable. Because they can’t see beyond their tiny , narrow viewpoint. Too many people have embraced an attitude that is fundamentally self-defeating in the long term and refuse to look beyond it, then complain when their gaming is 'mined out' and that they’re not enjoying gaming any more, and of course the reasons are many and varied but of course never have anything to do with how they were playing their games.

These ‘other’ styles might not be what a lot of folks are used to, or have been exposed to (which, if you ask me is one of the primary reasons the initial push for AOS wasn’t hugely successful, but to be fair, GW didn’t ‘sell’ this style of play very well either, and its a big part of the reason why GW are doubling back on their approach with AOS, probably against their own wishes) but they have genuine worth and value that is all too are too readily ignored, and are too easily dismissed and sneered at by people at large, and I really do think it is unfair and quite undeserved.

pox wrote:

As a horde player, I don't think I really agree with this. even with open play, there's no real incentive to take weaker-yet-similar units. Skaven slaves are worse then Clanrats, Clanrats are worse then Stormvermin, Night runners are worse then Gutter runners, etc.

The issue here isn't with open play - the issue is you are still approaching it with the 'min maxing' approach of tournaments, and how to maximise the 'power' of your army. Square peg. Round hole. Open play requires a perspective shift as much as anything else. The incentive to take weaker units is to fit the theme/hook of the game you are playing. Fluff. Which you acknowledge. Why do I take weaker units instead of stronger units? Because they fit the context of the narrative of the game. There is nothing wrong with power units, but also, there is nothing necessary about focusing on them either.

No, I don't believe that is the issue for me. I'm not a min/max player, and I haven't played in a tournament in a decade. Again, my main Skaven army is Clan Morrs. Even when I did play competitively I don't recall a Clanrat/Stormvermin army being the optimal winning army for skaven!

I'm more of a escalation league/pick up game player, neither of which lends itself to open play. (field a box of ogres against a box of Stormvermin and see if you have balance.)

Ultimately I think part of the approach is that Open Play doesn't gel that well with pick-up games, which is often (?) the de-facto type of game in that it's not part of a a league/campaign/tournament, but an impromptu game on club/game night; it can be mitigated a bit if you are familiar with your regular opponents (i.e. part of a gaming club as opposed to just a random Joe going down to the game shop and seeing who else turns up looking to play), but that's where I think Matched Play has its merits, even at the cost of losing flexibility and thematic army construction.

What I don't like though is how Matched Play has now become the default, period. I think it should be treated as an option, not the only option or a "hotfix" to the game. As I said before, I'm all about themes and fluffy armies and narrative type of gaming; what is bugging me about matched play thus far is twofold:

A) I can't use a battalion that I want because it's not listed in the General's Handbook e.g. I bought the Flesh Eater Courts boxed army, but I cannot use the formation included with it despite it being what I want, because it's not part of Matched Play.

B) Matched play, as of this moment, will require me to either make my units less effective to fit into its Battleline requirements, or else spend more money I don't want to spend at this particular time e.g. I have 20 ghouls I want to field as a single unit for the bonus, but Matched Play requires me to take two Battleline units so I'd need to split my ghouls into two units of 10, reducing their effectiveness, until at such time I buy another box to split them up between them to make two units of 20. While it's "only" about $40, I don't want to spend the money on it right now.

C) Some "these units become Battleline" are IMHO inconsistent with the fluff. I'll use my own Flesh-Eater Courts as an example. Crypt Horrors only become Battleline with a Crypt Horror Courtier as the general, but in the default Flesh-Eater court organization, Crypt Horrors are in virtually every section of the court, and while I could have missed something this seems to indicate you can't really take the Ghoul King if you want that (because the Ghoul King would be the general; speaking fluffwise not rules wise here). Now I could be mistaken since I haven't played, so maybe I can take multiple groupings together e.g. a group of crypt horrors with a Crypt Horror Courtier, then a Ghoul King with some stuff, etc. but it seems like it's stifling creativity and army building.

Yeah to get around that I definitely think you need to set up a campaign or something where matched play is not being used, or is only being used as a guideline where the other formations can be houserule pointed in.

Pickup games tend to not want any houserules and will stick with whatever is "tournament official"

 pox wrote:
I'm really excited to try out how my Clan Morrs list does with the new rules. slaves, Clansrats, Stormvermin, backed up by a little of everything else that's small. I'm also curious to see if horde armies make a return, and if they are viable builds.

Depends on how many slaves/clannies you have compared to how many stormvermin and the everything else. Slaves are worse than clannies (140 for 20 vs 60 for 10) and clanrats at at least battle line. Clanrats are utterly worthless IMHO. I'm sure that there are some armies out there that might struggle against a hoarde of trsh mobs, but the vast majority of armies that I've seen are built to drop big scary buffed monsters in a single turn, and due to wound carryover, it puts 30+ wounds on a unit of rats just as easily as it does onto a monster (behemoth, whatever), but now you've got no save and you'd best hope that you're immune to battleshock, otherwise anything that's left is also vapourised too.

Stormvermin can do some work, especially if buffed up by a warlord, but it's still going to be easier to just take Stormfiends and/or Abombs and, if not faceroll to victory, at least have a considerably easier time.

Skyryre shooting does alright for backup or even as a main force, but IMHO, clanrats are a tax and should be taken as a min number of min squadsrequired to meet force org requirements, simply because they have nothing to offer that everything else does better. They're a screen/chaff unit and nothing more.

 Drasius wrote:

 pox wrote:
I'm really excited to try out how my Clan Morrs list does with the new rules. slaves, Clansrats, Stormvermin, backed up by a little of everything else that's small. I'm also curious to see if horde armies make a return, and if they are viable builds.

Depends on how many slaves/clannies you have compared to how many stormvermin and the everything else. Slaves are worse than clannies (140 for 20 vs 60 for 10) and clanrats at at least battle line. Clanrats are utterly worthless IMHO. I'm sure that there are some armies out there that might struggle against a hoarde of trsh mobs, but the vast majority of armies that I've seen are built to drop big scary buffed monsters in a single turn, and due to wound carryover, it puts 30+ wounds on a unit of rats just as easily as it does onto a monster (behemoth, whatever), but now you've got no save and you'd best hope that you're immune to battleshock, otherwise anything that's left is also vapourised too.

Stormvermin can do some work, especially if buffed up by a warlord, but it's still going to be easier to just take Stormfiends and/or Abombs and, if not faceroll to victory, at least have a considerably easier time.

Skyryre shooting does alright for backup or even as a main force, but IMHO, clanrats are a tax and should be taken as a min number of min squadsrequired to meet force org requirements, simply because they have nothing to offer that everything else does better. They're a screen/chaff unit and nothing more.

Clan Morrs is Slaves/Clanrats/Stormvermin lead by Warlord Queek Headtaker! They are the sixth strongest clan after the main five. (unless the fluff has changed.) I usually field at least 75% of my army with that in mind, and just a few choices from Skyre, Eshin, Moulder, or Pestilence.

I have 100 Slaves, 256 Clanrats, and 80 Stormvermin (35 of which are built in a unit to push a Screaming Bell.)

My point was that in pick-up games points make it a lot easier to make them viable, even at low-point game. when I tried open play, it was hard to find opponents that would recognize the inherent weakness of an army consisting of (relatively) weak troops.

My interest is to field my Clan Morrs list and keep to its thematic theme, while still have a chance of winning. As an aside I own full armies from all the other clans, but Morrs has always been my favorite. Before points it was not a viable list, I found more purchase with a combined Moulder/Skryer list. (big guns, big monsters.)

pm713 wrote:

 namiel wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Rezyn wrote:

How has adding points changed the nature of the game that much in such a short time?

The answer is quite simple. Math hammer. Now nerds and geeks can prove their superiority over others now.

Also this quote in my sig should explain it.

Auticus wrote: 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".

Or it's made the game more popular because it's actually finished rather than a piece of rubbish and isn't auto win for summoning armies anymore.

The downside is some people are bitter now.

the game was great without points people just couldn't look past narrow view of how wargames should be played

Summoning armies are way too easy to beat I don't know where people get that.

The game was horrific. It took a negotiation to have a game that approached fair. If that was your idea of good then goodness knows what you think was bad.

Wow it must suck gaming with your people. We never had an issue, EVER because everyone was cool about it. We quite like it and it works well when you don't play with TFG

Bad would be anything privateer press, Kings of war, 9th age. Im sure theres more

As someone who spoke out about "negotiations" in the past, I think a lot of the problem is when you have a complete divide in gaming approaches.

For example, if Bob wants to play hardcore, I bring the best and try to crush you gaming, and Jim plays more laid back I have a cool idea/theme for an army and I want to build it, there's going to be conflicts regardless of if you have points or no points, negotiation or not because both people want something different, and generally speaking neither will budge in it.

AoS I think can work great if you play with like-minded people, that aren't 100% set on playing in a particular way. So maybe I want to try a "power list" and my opponent is cool with doing the same, or maybe (most likely in the specific case) I just want to play a casual fluffy army and with luck get a regular opponent to play a series of games against so we can make a mini-campaign out of it, and my opponent things that's a cool idea Wayne, I'm down for that and we do it.

It's just the "I want to play X way, no exceptions!" scenario that causes a problem. Is that scenario really so common??

Thats why I have for years and years said that the problem only occurs when two people with two different wants/approaches to the game try to play each other.

Recognizing what you want out of the game is a very important baseline step. From there, its a matter of finding people that want roughly the same thing.

The only time I really ever see any friction in real life is when a guy wants to play powergaming style vs a guy that doesn't and then the two go at each other.

Same thing online.

"Is that scenario really so common?"
In my experience - yes.

The people I know that are willing to play both narrative where they aren't min/maxing and also min/maxing is a fraction compared to the people that I know that are either all min/max all the time or all narrative all the time.

Forums exasperate the problem because often forum conversations are defaulted to finding the most efficient min/maxy combination, so it appears that's all thats out there. (In my experience thats not true, there are a lot of people that DONT want to min max but I find that they aren't regulars on forums or post very often for whatever reason)

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I have for years and years said that the problem only occurs when two people with two different wants/approaches to the game try to play each other.

Recognizing what you want out of the game is a very important baseline step. From there, its a matter of finding people that want roughly the same thing.

The only time I really ever see any friction in real life is when a guy wants to play powergaming style vs a guy that doesn't and then the two go at each other.

Same thing online.

"Is that scenario really so common?"
In my experience - yes.

The people I know that are willing to play both narrative where they aren't min/maxing and also min/maxing is a fraction compared to the people that I know that are either all min/max all the time or all narrative all the time.

Forums exasperate the problem because often forum conversations are defaulted to finding the most efficient min/maxy combination, so it appears that's all thats out there. (In my experience thats not true, there are a lot of people that DONT want to min max but I find that they aren't regulars on forums or post very often for whatever reason)

I think that's quite true! It's also a matter of where on the forum you're posting. I thematic army chosen for the ways the models look and fit the background (established or made up) can be hard to convey outside of a modelling/painting section. when posting about an army, most will look at synergy and if the army can cover all unit types/be well rounded.

A good example of this is my combined Dark Eldar/Eldar/Harlequin army. I made a point of picking four factions from the four books that would both work together fluff-wise, and fit with good color schemes working together while keeping them obviously unique. there's really no reason to post about the army outside of M&P, its chosen for a specific reason, isn't a tourney army, and isn't really designed to win. (it's for 40K end times scenarios, they are hinted at in the four books.)

Dude it's going nuts in my area. People are really having an absolute blast with it. I've seen an insane surge in the game both locally and online and it's fantastic.

It's the new battletomes that's really hooking in a lot here. The customising with spells and artefacts is just fantastic.

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I have for years and years said that the problem only occurs when two people with two different wants/approaches to the game try to play each other.

Recognizing what you want out of the game is a very important baseline step. From there, its a matter of finding people that want roughly the same thing.

The only time I really ever see any friction in real life is when a guy wants to play powergaming style vs a guy that doesn't and then the two go at each other.

Same thing online.

"Is that scenario really so common?"
In my experience - yes.

The people I know that are willing to play both narrative where they aren't min/maxing and also min/maxing is a fraction compared to the people that I know that are either all min/max all the time or all narrative all the time.

Forums exasperate the problem because often forum conversations are defaulted to finding the most efficient min/maxy combination, so it appears that's all thats out there. (In my experience thats not true, there are a lot of people that DONT want to min max but I find that they aren't regulars on forums or post very often for whatever reason)

You have perfectly stated how games become unfun. There are people I will play and people I wont play because of this. I understand most of the regulars around my store to know what kind of game to expect out of them. I also make my intentions clear. When it came to 8th ed I would state to a person before the game "hey I wanna just try this theme list today" most of the time the other person does the same. If I was prepping for adepticon I would tell the other person "this is my adepticon tournament list, bring the nastiest list you can come up with". Only ran into one issue over the years with that and it was during a game of LOTR when I was prepping for adepticon and in the end the manager even said "he told you it was his tournament list what did you expect"

This is why aos without points is not a bad game, its bad people that ruin a perfectly fine game

I think one of the issues with units like Clan Rats being inferior to Stormvermin, is mostly an issue with legacy armies. Which were designed for points, where 1 or 2 points per model could vastly effect an army that is comprised of hundreds. However the AoS Design philosophy is quite clearly moving to the bigger more heroic infantry, giant cavalry/monsters with god like leaders, backed up by a smattering of some chaff. The newer armies seem to suffer much less from this problem.

On the topic of points, I also fell into the camp of people that was flabbergasted when AOS launched and it seemed like it was "take what you want" before any real background had come down, before we'd got over the loss of fantasy, it seemed ridiculous.
But then I thought back to the GW game that easily gave me the most mileage; Lord Of The Rings. Now I collected fantasy since 5th, 40k since 3rd, and I have never enjoyed the gaming aspect of the hobby as much as I did in the LOTR heyday. Lord of the Rings had points and I almost never used them. Me and my friends would try and get as much stuff to recreate the scenarios from the rule books as closely as possible. Hell GW actively encouraged players to theme their armies as a 50/50 Good bad split, so you could always get a game against an opposite faction.
Where we couldn't match the forces required, we just eyeballed it, and swapped enough stuff around to keep the game fair but still stick to the core theme.
I played a couple of games with points and it was okay, but clash of the line battles weren't really why I played that particular game, I loved the narrative aspect. And I always played evil so I was used to fighting an uphill battle when I'd have 250 points of goblins vs almost 900 points of Heroes, yet with the right amount of cunning (and hobbit sniping) I could win more often than not.

I just see the General's Handbook as a return to the LOTR method. Now people who just want a straight up line vs line battle, can do so with Matched Play, and those of us who primarily game at home, can theme our armies with our friends and play how we want. And if either group decides they want to try it the other way, they can.

The fact is, is that the narrative aspect will not appeal to enough players to keep the game alive. It might feel like it's all points now but it's more likely this:
Before there were 4 guys playing in a store.
Now there are those same 4 guys who if they play each other can play how they want, but they also have an additional 10 players who are there for matched play.
The orginal 4 may never want to play with the other 10, but those 10 people are spending money on the same hobby as the 4, which means the game gets supported, which means models get released, which is good for everyone.

Another great example for me right now is 40k. I hate 40k now, I don't like the lack of balance and the gakky over powered crazy stuff rolling around, but I love 30k. I will only play 30k, but I am more than happy that 99% of players are only doing 40k because it keeps the whole game alive, which does benefit us 30kers. Now sure, I will find it much harder to get pick up games if I refuse to play 40k, but I'm fine with that. I only get a couple of games in a year, so I'm fine with waiting so I can get a came with a like minded player.

I think the GH will prove to be a good thing in the long run.

I'm not keen on the sudden decline on the more hobby/fantasy/narrative posts (mainly talking of the AoS facebook groups rather than here) since the release of the GHB

The past 12 months were excellent time for hobby. Loads of new things too see, people experimenting with new themes, lots of painting and hobby discussion.

Now it feels that 90% of the posts are variations of: how many points is this list, I need to know what to take to completely smash this list, what's the most OP force to take right now... etc etc etc...

I get that people enjoy the math/points side of it, but its pretty dull to see the same thing day in, day out. (its the same when seeing people post pictures of the boxes of the newest release when they buy it- the same day everyone else has done exactly the same thing! we don't all need to show the same unopened boxes online!)

Another point I'm disappointed on, which I know I will be alone on, is that I'm pretty sick of seeing posts that say 'I had no interest in AoS in when it came out but now there is points its made me come back'

Yes, its good for business, but these floods of people coming back could turn out to be a bad thing. I hated the way wargaming had become in general, and with so many people throwing in the towel with the release of AoS, I felt that a lot of the negativity went out with it- the people that enjoyed the game for all its aspects stayed whilst the people that were only in it for winning left, which with it, took a lot of the more negative aspects of the community.

The AoS community has been cheerful, helpful and seem to be having a lot of fun. But since shortly before the release, I've already seen arguments break out over min/maxing, people still hating on AoS but will now play it because it has points. I had too block a couple of people on facebook, just because I was sick of seeing troll post from them in AoS groups.

Its not all doom and gloom with me though! I personally love the book. The GHB is fantastic, the art and layout is great, its jammed pack with info and stuff to work with, it feels like they went to town jamming stuff in (like the back cover having the rules printed on it! no wasted blank pages!)


I had quit warhammer and gone strictly 6mm fantasy during 8th as I was just sick to death of painting hordes and not finishing anything (and I wont play with unpainted minis!) 6mm was faster, cheaper, and I could finish a unit in a weekend!
I've become pretty much in the same boat with AoS- the smaller sized forces work great for grabbing new and interesting forces I'd otherwise not touch, but the trouble is, my ideas and passions out weigh my talent for getting stuff painting and done!! I've overloaded myself with stuff and been having too much fun!

I agree with you Rexhavoc. Thing for me is though I am getting my first game of AoS this weekend if plans don't change for both parties. The only reason I am getting games in is because of points.

I tried, to get people to play AoS, not one person wanted to play. Now I might start getting games in now.

So it's a double edged sword. It's good I get to finally get a game in, have to take in the bad of how math hammer it can become now.