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.

Just genuinely curious, and why arent they free so the game is balanced and in some cases even fair? GW will never cease to amaze me.

They didn't think points were required when the game first came out, but so many of us asked for points they decided to create points. The reason they aren't free is because GW is a business, which makes money. Also a £15 book packed of content is hardly something to complain about, Lets be honest, if we can afford GWs models, we can afford a £15 book which is actually pretty handy. But hey, there's always something to complain about with AoS.

I'd jsut like to paly a fair game of AOS seeing as they stopped producing the other game system completely for it.

You can ask them yourself by writing them a letter at team@whitedwarf.co.uk. You may get your answer printed in 2-3 months tome along with a very friendly answer.

sLeEpYrOcK wrote:
I'd jsut like to paly a fair game of AOS seeing as they stopped producing the other game system completely for it.

Just get the General's Handbook, or find someone who has it and ask for the point values. Write them down if you really want to on a notepad, and simply remember how many Battleline units you need for each size of game.

Because they tried a social experiment and brought the game back to how games were in the 80s, when points weren't a standard.

The social experiment failed.

The points have never been balanced though. GHB points are not balanced IMO. They provide structure but there is a lot to be desired in terms of balance.

The GHB isn't a replacement for working things out with your opponent to make things balanced, but it is an extremely useful tool for doing that. If you are relying on just the GHB to get balanced games you may be sorely disappointed since there are a lot of overpowered and underpowered models, some extremely so.

I believe they said during the recent stream that they would update the book yearly(?), and keeping the points separately is what allows them to do that.

They thought with no points we'd all start buying the £100 models which have an obscene profit margin for them, it was pure greed.

If people can't use their old models they'll have to buy the new ones.

All because they no longer communicate with the customers and in fact are so arrogant they figure they don't need to ask us what we want we'll just buy anything they make.

Had they asked they'd of known what people want more than anything else is a balanced Well written game.

Ghb was a panic move to try and get people they lost back it's really no surprise it's not balanced.

Their policies have changed since AoS' release. Considering they went out of their way to get community feedback during the development of the GHB I'd say ignoring it is no longer the standard.

Early AoS was basically Kirby flipping the bird on the way out leaving them to pick up the pieces and make it better, which they certainly have from those early days of AoS.

GW made a lot of mistakes with AoS' release, but it forced them to change their company culture and I think GW have become a much better company as a result.

And it worked out great for us too. The GHB is a great starting point and GW are already seeking to improve the balance within. GW asked all players from the Warlords event to email their lists to the Dev team could evaluate them, and it was also hinted that we'll get a yearly update.

This is great because no longer will armies be trapped with bad points until the army book/battletome is redone, instead each year we'll get better and better balance within the game.

Also works out well for GW because every year they get a massive cash injection from the entire player base purchasing points updates.

 Bottle wrote:
GW made a lot of mistakes with AoS' release, but it forced them to change their company culture and I think GW have become a much better company as a result.

And it worked out great for us too. The GHB is a great starting point and GW are already seeking to improve the balance within. GW asked all players from the Warlords event to email their lists to the Dev team could evaluate them, and it was also hinted that we'll get a yearly update.

This is great because no longer will armies be trapped with bad points until the army book/battletome is redone, instead each year we'll get better and better balance within the game.

Also works out well for GW because every year they get a massive cash injection from the entire player base purchasing points updates.

Yup I feel the same way about it.

^ Same.

Also, happy the points were put forth later rather than at the start which, while very unfortunate for many who wanted them, kept them from focusing on benefiting only the big and expensive models as early AoS definitely focused on collector over player.

I'm glad they are making an effort to keep updating things. I hope my current tournament list won't be valid this time next year.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm glad they are making an effort to keep updating things. I hope my current tournament list won't be valid this time next year.

I don't know about that, but changing points on above/underperforming units is certainly welcome. Just try not to pull an Eldar on us

 n0t_u wrote:
Early AoS was basically Kirby flipping the bird on the way out leaving them to pick up the pieces and make it better, which they certainly have from those early days of AoS.

Yes, that's right, it was Kirbys fault. All of it. He wrote the rules and drove the whole project personally. Yes, he did.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 n0t_u wrote:
Early AoS was basically Kirby flipping the bird on the way out leaving them to pick up the pieces and make it better, which they certainly have from those early days of AoS.

Yes, that's right, it was Kirbys fault. All of it. He wrote the rules and drove the whole project personally. Yes, he did.

It was under him we lost specialist games, his decision to shift focus away from vets onto children, he oversaw the period where points were reduced to force people to buy more while he hiked up prices.

The CEO gives the company it's focus and vision it's really not unfair to say his disrespect for customers was reflected by the design team.

GW was just a way to pad his retirement fund nothing more that's why the company's in such a sorry state currently.

They wanted to encourage talking with your opponent and trying to be fair; it didn't work because they had to basically shoehorn points in as an afterthought to appease the people who can't bother to decide what is/isn't fair in a game and need a book to say how much things should be worth.

WayneTheGame wrote:
They wanted to encourage talking with your opponent and trying to be fair; it didn't work because they had to basically shoehorn points in as an afterthought to appease the people who can't bother to decide what is/isn't fair in a game and need a book to say how much things should be worth.

Was wondering when someone from this crowd was going to interject.

WayneTheGame wrote:
They wanted to encourage talking with your opponent and trying to be fair; it didn't work because they had to basically shoehorn points in as an afterthought to appease the people who can't bother to decide what is/isn't fair in a game and need a book to say how much things should be worth.

That sounds suspiciously like an veiled attack on what you perceive as a lesser type of gamer.

In reality, many gamers enjoy the min/maxing, "let's see how much I can tune this list" aspect of wargaming. The overwhelming majority of modern wargames include this. Age of Sigmar completely and totally lacked this element at launch. Many communities gave the game a shot and immediately realized that a balancing framework based on comparative levels of sportsmanship and not on actual game mechanics wasn't going to work for all of its members... many of whom didn't necessarily know each other. These communities simply moved on to other games. Now that a game mechanic based balancing mechanism has been added in, many communities are giving it another shot.

I find your insinuation that I "couldn't be bothered to decide what is/isn't fair in a game" and that I "need a book to say how much things should be worth" is insulting and inaccurate. GW doesn't pay me to write rules. I'm not going to spend potentially hundreds of hours of trial and error playtesting coming to a decision on game balance... only to have a new community member with a new army cause us to need to start over. I'm simply going to switch to a game where the publisher gave me a balancing mechanism I can use with strangers. I've been quite enjoying Star Wars X-Wing. Now that the General's Handbook is out, I'm enjoying Age of Sigmar again.

It seemed an attempt to put the responsibility for the game, the setting up and the scenario back into the players hands..........instead of having the players waiting to be told exactly what they could and could not do and the responsibility for this being with the design studio, who then get barracked from players for not fitting what they wanted from their games, but who don't just change as they see fit to suit them.

Bit like the old days in RT/WFB 3rd.

It failed, apparently.

Well, the pt system makes sense. We use them in our rarely played games.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
It seemed an attempt to put the responsibility for the game, the setting up and the scenario back into the players hands..........instead of having the players waiting to be told exactly what they could and could not do and the responsibility for this being with the design studio, who then get barracked from players for not fitting what they wanted from their games, but who don't just change as they see fit to suit them.

Bit like the old days in RT/WFB 3rd.

It failed, apparently.

RT was a whole different kettle of fish considering it had a literal Game Master.

Responsibility for ensuring a balanced game still is in the players hands, they just have a system in which to do it now rather than being thrown into the water without a life jacket.

 WarbossDakka wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm glad they are making an effort to keep updating things. I hope my current tournament list won't be valid this time next year.

I don't know about that, but changing points on above/underperforming units is certainly welcome. Just try not to pull an Eldar on us

I meant in the sense that the models I run would no longer fit in 2000 points.

Playing without points is how I grew up on wargames.

While I appreciate what GW was trying to go for, it did fail pretty hard because today's market is not the market for that type of game, and I don't think we will ever return to that. Even trying to introduce a game master element I feel would fail hard because thats just not what the bulk of players seem to want. (I'm gauging based on own personal experience plus personal anecdote on the internet)

The definition of player responsibility has also changed and is quite different today than it was then. This is where so many arguments seem to stem from.

If I'm a game publsher and I want to make money then yes I would have to write a game that catered strictly to the powergaming element because that is what is predominant. If your game doesn't have a thriving min/max tournament scene, it is going to be irrelevant.

 auticus wrote:
Playing without points is how I grew up on wargames.

While I appreciate what GW was trying to go for, it did fail pretty hard because today's market is not the market for that type of game, and I don't think we will ever return to that. Even trying to introduce a game master element I feel would fail hard because thats just not what the bulk of players seem to want. (I'm gauging based on own personal experience plus personal anecdote on the internet)

The definition of player responsibility has also changed and is quite different today than it was then. This is where so many arguments seem to stem from.

If I'm a game publsher and I want to make money then yes I would have to write a game that catered strictly to the powergaming element because that is what is predominant. If your game doesn't have a thriving min/max tournament scene, it is going to be irrelevant.

Agreed. Competition play is where the dollars are.

Quick question on the General's Handbook - do models that came out after the GHB have points posted somewhere, or do you have to wait for the next version of the GHB to get them?

We don't know, the Bonesplittaz and Beastclaw releases had their points included and there have been no releases since.

Pretty much unknown till they release something new that isn't in the GHB.