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.

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

Not entirely true. Grombrindal, the White Dwarf's warscroll was released as an exclusive 'freebie' in the new White Dwarf relaunch. It did not include points. An email to GW confirmed that they have no intention of releasing points for him in the future.

While I REALLY hope that future releases get points, I'm concerned that they won't (as in the case with Grombrindal). GW has an abysmal track record at supporting optional expansions in an ongoing fashion.

Grombrindal seems like he could be a special case though. He's a limited edition model with rules only in White Dwarf, and his abilities would be overpowering in a tournament setting.

Personally, as someone who prefers not having points, I think I like the idea of new models going for a few months before they receive points. Gives them a chance to be experienced outside of a competitive environment, where even a slight miscalculation in points could render them worthless or overly worthwhile. And not initially having points means that competitive players will have to step outside of the competitive environment, briefly, to experience new factions and models.

But I'm guessing that having to wait on points could be a dealbreaker for some types of players.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Grombrindal seems like he could be a special case though. He's a limited edition model with rules only in White Dwarf, and his abilities would be overpowering in a tournament setting.

Personally, as someone who prefers not having points, I think I like the idea of new models going for a few months before they receive points. Gives them a chance to be experienced outside of a competitive environment, where even a slight miscalculation in points could render them worthless or overly worthwhile. And not initially having points means that competitive players will have to step outside of the competitive environment, briefly, to experience new factions and models.

But I'm guessing that having to wait on points could be a dealbreaker for some types of players.

It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.

As to Grombrindal being overpowering in a tournament setting... well, that's sort of what points are for. Would be be overpowering at 50 points? Sure. How about 500 points. No way. He'd be useless since he's take up so much of your army. The goal with points is to find a reasonable value. GW, as the publisher should have some method for coming up with a reasonable value, be it play testing or some sort of standard formula.

I'm just waiting to see what the next non-Limited Edition release looks like. If it doesn't have Matched Play points on launch day, I'm going to assume the General's Handbook was a one time thing and won't be supported going forward on a consistent basis.

Mabe they'll have the points value/Stats ona card in the box, like some of the LOTR minis had? at least i think it was lotr minis that did that..

 Kriswall wrote:
It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.

The General's Handbook didn't just have points in it, even if that's the only section a lot of players read. GW is trying their hardest to support multiple playstyles with Age of Sigmar, and sometimes, that may involve releasing figures that aren't intended for Matched Play, such as the hilariously overpowered Grombrindal. If that's a deal breaker, that's not really GW's fault. That's the fault of the people you play with, and as such, they deserve the brunt of your ire.

As to Grombrindal being overpowering in a tournament setting... well, that's sort of what points are for. Would be be overpowering at 50 points? Sure. How about 500 points. No way. He'd be useless since he's take up so much of your army. The goal with points is to find a reasonable value. GW, as the publisher should have some method for coming up with a reasonable value, be it play testing or some sort of standard formula.

Have you see his rules? He can teleport in 3" next to a HERO/MONSTER figure, reroll all hit and wound rolls, and do potentially 18 wounds. He's also almost impossible to kill and he can buff the crap out of a nearby HERO, allowing them to reroll ANY dice rolls. Even at 500 points, he would ruin nearly every opponent's strategy and decimate certain armies in a single turn. He might be fun, but there's no point value at which he becomes fair. Just a point value where he becomes too expensive to use.

I'm just waiting to see what the next non-Limited Edition release looks like. If it doesn't have Matched Play points on launch day, I'm going to assume the General's Handbook was a one time thing and won't be supported going forward on a consistent basis.

AoS is due some models, but between the Genestealer Cult and the Prospero board game, I'm not sure where they'll stick it. Late November?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.

The General's Handbook didn't just have points in it, even if that's the only section a lot of players read. GW is trying their hardest to support multiple playstyles with Age of Sigmar, and sometimes, that may involve releasing figures that aren't intended for Matched Play, such as the hilariously overpowered Grombrindal. If that's a deal breaker, that's not really GW's fault. That's the fault of the people you play with, and as such, they deserve the brunt of your ire.

Agree to disagree. I don't think it's unreasonable to be a little aggravated when I'm presented by GW with three play methods, told to buy a magazine because it contains "full rules" for a limited edition model and then come to find out that the "full rules" only cover two out of the three play methods. I'm not entirely sure why you think the proper reaction is to get angry with my friends for choosing the unsupported play method and not with GW for not supporting all three play methods.

If they intended Grombrindal to be compatible with only two of the three play methods, they shouldn't have billed the White Dwarf as containing "full rules". It doesn't contain full rules. It contains partial rules, only suitable for parts of Age of Sigmar. An entire play method is totally excluded from using him.

 Kriswall wrote:

Agree to disagree. I don't think it's unreasonable to be a little aggravated when I'm presented by GW with three play methods, told to buy a magazine because it contains "full rules" for a limited edition model and then come to find out that the "full rules" only cover two out of the three play methods. I'm not entirely sure why you think the proper reaction is to get angry with my friends for choosing the unsupported play method and not with GW for not supporting all three play methods.

Technically, Grombrindal also had rules for use in Silver Tower, so the choice to not support him in Matched Play was a deliberate one. His rules are only found in the White Dwarf issue - they are not available on the website or the AoS app. It's just a fun little character model that nobody should ever get competitive with.

Age of Sigmar is a very modular game, and there is enough there for every play style that not EVERY rule, unit, or scenario needs to be appropriate for every style. It is okay that there are tournament-only rules, just as it is okay that there are open play-only rules. Not everything in Age of Sigmar is appropriate for every play style, and as such, if you lean too heavily towards one play style (as I do, with an avoidance of point values), you can't be surprised or disappointed if parts of the game are locked off from you. It's like being a solo, non-guild player on a MMORPG. You can access a lot of content, but your choices keep you from experiencing dungeons and raids.

If they intended Grombrindal to be compatible with only two of the three play methods, they shouldn't have billed the White Dwarf as containing "full rules". It doesn't contain full rules. It contains partial rules, only suitable for parts of Age of Sigmar. An entire play method is totally excluded from using him.

Now you are arguing semantics. The General's Handbook is the ONLY place where points are listed, and that app/website and all the Battletomes/campaign books have warscrolls without points, and they are considered the full rules for the various units.

Points are a second class citizen in the Age of Sigmar ecosystem, as it should be. While tournament players tend to be the loudest, squeakiest wheels when it comes to their entitlement, they were the ones spending the first year of Age of Sigmar attacking it, so maybe their entitlement towards any Age of Sigmar play style is a bit unwarranted. Just my opinion.

While Kris seems to be a bit much when it comes to his thoughts.. Wow you manage to pull it right in the other direction of bad, seriously second class citizens? I mean lets be blunt, the points system certainly has reinvigorated the AoS scene quite well, not to mention being the first streamed tournament style by GW themselves.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.

The General's Handbook didn't just have points in it, even if that's the only section a lot of players read. GW is trying their hardest to support multiple playstyles with Age of Sigmar, and sometimes, that may involve releasing figures that aren't intended for Matched Play, such as the hilariously overpowered Grombrindal. If that's a deal breaker, that's not really GW's fault. That's the fault of the people you play with, and as such, they deserve the brunt of your ire.

Agree to disagree. I don't think it's unreasonable to be a little aggravated when I'm presented by GW with three play methods, told to buy a magazine because it contains "full rules" for a limited edition model and then come to find out that the "full rules" only cover two out of the three play methods. I'm not entirely sure why you think the proper reaction is to get angry with my friends for choosing the unsupported play method and not with GW for not supporting all three play methods.

If they intended Grombrindal to be compatible with only two of the three play methods, they shouldn't have billed the White Dwarf as containing "full rules". It doesn't contain full rules. It contains partial rules, only suitable for parts of Age of Sigmar. An entire play method is totally excluded from using him.

It's entirely possible Grombrindal was never meant to be used in Matched Play. Certain formations are narrative-only. If GW has no intention of seeing the White Dwarf in Matched Play, then the magazine did contain his full rules. Also as far as the GHB no longer being supported, the predominant theory is that GW will release new rules once a year to rebalance points and include new armies. Rumor has it that at least one AoS battletome is coming later this year, possibly Tzeentch Arcanites. We'll have to see how point are handled if/when that happens.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.

The General's Handbook didn't just have points in it, even if that's the only section a lot of players read. GW is trying their hardest to support multiple playstyles with Age of Sigmar, and sometimes, that may involve releasing figures that aren't intended for Matched Play, such as the hilariously overpowered Grombrindal. If that's a deal breaker, that's not really GW's fault. That's the fault of the people you play with, and as such, they deserve the brunt of your ire.

Agree to disagree. I don't think it's unreasonable to be a little aggravated when I'm presented by GW with three play methods, told to buy a magazine because it contains "full rules" for a limited edition model and then come to find out that the "full rules" only cover two out of the three play methods. I'm not entirely sure why you think the proper reaction is to get angry with my friends for choosing the unsupported play method and not with GW for not supporting all three play methods.

If they intended Grombrindal to be compatible with only two of the three play methods, they shouldn't have billed the White Dwarf as containing "full rules". It doesn't contain full rules. It contains partial rules, only suitable for parts of Age of Sigmar. An entire play method is totally excluded from using him.

It's entirely possible Grombrindal was never meant to be used in Matched Play. Certain formations are narrative-only. If GW has no intention of seeing the White Dwarf in Matched Play, then the magazine did contain his full rules. Also as far as the GHB no longer being supported, the predominant theory is that GW will release new rules once a year to rebalance points and include new armies. Rumor has it that at least one AoS battletome is coming later this year, possibly Tzeentch Arcanites. We'll have to see how point are handled if/when that happens.

Not so much a theory as they were talking about it on the actual tournament stream.

Its a lost cause Sqorgar, this was already done to death in another thread where Kriswall extrapolated a lack of points for him into...

To have such an iconic Hero not be supported doesn't make me feel like AoS has a real future.

For those of us who think that the model who's only difference from a pre-existing product is exclusive packaging isn't meant to be taken seriously, the white dwarf 'release' has no bearing on the future of matched play.

 Kriswall wrote:

If they intended Grombrindal to be compatible with only two of the three play methods, they shouldn't have billed the White Dwarf as containing "full rules". It doesn't contain full rules. It contains partial rules, only suitable for parts of Age of Sigmar. An entire play method is totally excluded from using him.

Not only is an entire play method excluded, but an entire group of people as well !!! They have made it perfectly clear that you DO NOT have their permission to play with Grombrindal and use his new rules unless you buy the mini and paint it using the provided painting tutorial (thus excluding players that do not paint) I would label myself pretty tough, but even I would think twice before playing Grombrindal without qualifying for their permission!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Its a lost cause Sqorgar, this was already done to death in another thread where Kriswall extrapolated a lack of points for him into...

To have such an iconic Hero not be supported doesn't make me feel like AoS has a real future.

For those of us who think that the model who's only difference from a pre-existing product is exclusive packaging isn't meant to be taken seriously, the white dwarf 'release' has no bearing on the future of matched play.

Let's call a duck a duck. The full conversation was more along the lines that Age of Sigmar without points doesn't appeal to large segments of the gaming population and has been considered a failure in those circles. The General's Handbook has changed this failure into a tentative success. If the GHB isn't fully supported, this tentative success is going to immediately reverse back into a failure. I'm really hoping that I'm wrong and that Grombrindal is an anomaly. I will say that many players won't be happy if Battletome Tzeentch Arcanites (or whatever) is released without points. Waiting for a once per year Matched Play points update before the army is usable isn't a good option.

Was I being a little hyperbolic with the Grombrindal example? Sure. In my defense, GW is really, really bad at supporting optional rules in the long run. If we see a major release, such as a Battletome, come out without points, I would expect to see many players who were overjoyed by the GHB throw up their hands in frustration and just walk away from the game. I know my community will walk away.

 Kriswall wrote:


I will say that many players won't be happy if Battletome Tzeentch Arcanites (or whatever) is released without points. Waiting for a once per year Matched Play points update before the army is usable isn't a good option.

On this point, I fully agree. Tzeentch is my favorite of the Chaos gods, and I absolutely love the models from Silver Tower. If I was told I could use the army after release because it didn't have points, I might have to take a trip to Nottingham, pitch fork in hand.

If we see a major release, such as a Battletome, come out without points, I would expect to see many players who were overjoyed by the GHB throw up their hands in frustration and just walk away from the game. I know my community will walk away.

One model does not equal a trend. Grombrindal not getting points shouldn't in any way indicate the policy to which GW will adhere on future releases. If the next major release (as in more than one model) doesn't get points, then we can worry.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:


I will say that many players won't be happy if Battletome Tzeentch Arcanites (or whatever) is released without points. Waiting for a once per year Matched Play points update before the army is usable isn't a good option.

On this point, I fully agree. Tzeentch is my favorite of the Chaos gods, and I absolutely love the models from Silver Tower. If I was told I could use the army after release because it didn't have points, I might have to take a trip to Nottingham, pitch fork in hand.

If we see a major release, such as a Battletome, come out without points, I would expect to see many players who were overjoyed by the GHB throw up their hands in frustration and just walk away from the game. I know my community will walk away.

One model does not equal a trend. Grombrindal not getting points shouldn't in any way indicate the policy to which GW will adhere on future releases. If the next major release (as in more than one model) doesn't get points, then we can worry.

I agree that one model does not a trend make... HOWEVER, they said points would be available for all future releases. This is not true. We've already seen one release without points. I hope we don't see more. Historical evidence doesn't make me optimistic.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:While Kris seems to be a bit much when it comes to his thoughts.. Wow you manage to pull it right in the other direction of bad, seriously second class citizens? I mean lets be blunt, the points system certainly has reinvigorated the AoS scene quite well, not to mention being the first streamed tournament style by GW themselves.

No doubt, but points are not included on the warscrolls or in any of the scenarios (outside of the GHB), and the battle report in the most recent White Dwarf was done without points. Not only that, but you have to pay for the points, while unit rules are free. Points are the second class citizens, not the players who prefer Matched Play. They are well taken care of, but they do have to accept that the game does not revolve entirely around points, and as such, there may be parts of the game they can't play as long as they doggedly adhere to only one of several play styles.

Kriswall wrote:The full conversation was more along the lines that Age of Sigmar without points doesn't appeal to large segments of the gaming population and has been considered a failure in those circles. The General's Handbook has changed this failure into a tentative success. If the GHB isn't fully supported, this tentative success is going to immediately reverse back into a failure. I'm really hoping that I'm wrong and that Grombrindal is an anomaly. I will say that many players won't be happy if Battletome Tzeentch Arcanites (or whatever) is released without points. Waiting for a once per year Matched Play points update before the army is usable isn't a good option.

First, the armies are still usable, just not in Matched Play. If you wanted to play the Tzeentch Arcanites without points, it is well within your ability to. If you choose not to, that's on you, not Games Workshop, and it certainly doesn't make the army worthless or unusable.

Second, we don't know how often the GHB will be updated. We can speculate all we want about it, but I don't think we can interpolate GW's plan from Grombrindal alone.

Third, competitive players have always been the squeaky wheels, and the volume of complaints against AoS for not having a point system came from a minority of players. In the early days of AoS, there were all sorts of complaints against AoS from it having a baby rule set, having space marines, not having points, having silly rules, and generally just being a "slap in the face" to long time WHFB fans. Getting points wasn't some magically trigger that turned Age of Sigmar from a worthless game into a passable one. It was always passable. It just took time, both so the wounds of WHFB's death could heal and so that GW could fill out the game with more AoS-specific armies and background lore. The tide started turning in January with the Fyreslayers, with the Iron Jawz and Sylvaneth receiving near universal praise after that.

Also, AoS already had several (third-party) point systems, almost from day one, so it isn't like the GHB suddenly made the game have a working point system. If I'm not mistaken, they even used one of them as the basis for the GHB's point system.

Was I being a little hyperbolic with the Grombrindal example? Sure. In my defense, GW is really, really bad at supporting optional rules in the long run. If we see a major release, such as a Battletome, come out without points, I would expect to see many players who were overjoyed by the GHB throw up their hands in frustration and just walk away from the game. I know my community will walk away.

I think you should probably expect future Battletomes to remain without points. The Sylvaneth Battletome came out around the GHB, when the points for those units were known, and it didn't contain points. And it would defeat the purpose of a living point system when you hardcode the points into army books.

 Sqorgar wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:While Kris seems to be a bit much when it comes to his thoughts.. Wow you manage to pull it right in the other direction of bad, seriously second class citizens? I mean lets be blunt, the points system certainly has reinvigorated the AoS scene quite well, not to mention being the first streamed tournament style by GW themselves.

No doubt, but points are not included on the warscrolls or in any of the scenarios (outside of the GHB), and the battle report in the most recent White Dwarf was done without points. Not only that, but you have to pay for the points, while unit rules are free. Points are the second class citizens, not the players who prefer Matched Play. They are well taken care of, but they do have to accept that the game does not revolve entirely around points, and as such, there may be parts of the game they can't play as long as they doggedly adhere to only one of several play styles.

Kriswall wrote:The full conversation was more along the lines that Age of Sigmar without points doesn't appeal to large segments of the gaming population and has been considered a failure in those circles. The General's Handbook has changed this failure into a tentative success. If the GHB isn't fully supported, this tentative success is going to immediately reverse back into a failure. I'm really hoping that I'm wrong and that Grombrindal is an anomaly. I will say that many players won't be happy if Battletome Tzeentch Arcanites (or whatever) is released without points. Waiting for a once per year Matched Play points update before the army is usable isn't a good option.

First, the armies are still usable, just not in Matched Play. If you wanted to play the Tzeentch Arcanites without points, it is well within your ability to. If you choose not to, that's on you, not Games Workshop, and it certainly doesn't make the army worthless or unusable.

Who am I going to play with? I'm just curious. You guys make it sound like it's my decision to play without points. There are multiple gaming stores in my area. NONE of them have a regular community of non-points using Age of Sigmar players. So, I ask you. Who do I play with? Let's say I make the decision to play without points. How, from a very real and practical standpoint, do you see that working out? I'm legitimately curious. ...or are you condemning not just me, but my entire community? I don't think you appreciate my predicament.

YES, an army release without points is a useless army where I and many others live because NOBODY I know plays the game without points. Everyone I know would simply rather play a different game that doesn't require the players to work out how to balance opposing sides. Name another popular, current tabletop game that gives it players only minimal guidance on how to build balanced armies. I can't think of one, so don't be surprised that the idea is unpopular with whole communities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
And it would defeat the purpose of a living point system when you hardcode the points into army books.

Sure, makes much more sense to hard code the points into a rules supplement instead?

 Sqorgar wrote:
Grombrindal seems like he could be a special case though. He's a limited edition model with rules only in White Dwarf, and his abilities would be overpowering in a tournament setting.

Personally, as someone who prefers not having points, I think I like the idea of new models going for a few months before they receive points. Gives them a chance to be experienced outside of a competitive environment, where even a slight miscalculation in points could render them worthless or overly worthwhile. And not initially having points means that competitive players will have to step outside of the competitive environment, briefly, to experience new factions and models.

But I'm guessing that having to wait on points could be a dealbreaker for some types of players.

Over powered? have you seen those frost lord on thundertusk move 13" shoot 18" and just do 6 mortal wounds?

Nah he would not be considered over powered in a game that has so many things over powered imo

FWIW, the General's Handbook says that the points values for units not included there will be found in the relevant Battletome. I imagine future releases will include a page at the back with the pitched battle profiles in the same format as the tables in the GHB.

Thommy H wrote:
FWIW, the General's Handbook says that the points values for units not included there will be found in the relevant Battletome. I imagine future releases will include a page at the back with the pitched battle profiles in the same format as the tables in the GHB.

So AoS a game where rules are touted to be free will actually make you buy the army books, yep sounds like GW to me.

 Kriswall wrote:
Who am I going to play with? I'm just curious.

You have absolutely no agency in this, at all? You can't ask them if they would mind playing an open battle? Maybe say, geez, I really like playing this way and wouldn't it be swell if one of you guys I regularly play with could do me a solid and play this way with me for a battle or two? When I played Warmachine, I found several people who were willing (not overjoyed, but willing) to play smaller point sizes and non-tournament scenarios. And there were games I played that weren't exactly the format I would've preferred, but I did it as a thanks for earlier games and generally because I'm not a completely donkey-cave.

And yes, I would consider a group of uncompromising players who only considered what they wanted to be a bunch of donkey-caves. And really, if you've only got a bunch of donkey-caves to play with, then that's not really Games Workshop's fault, is it? If anything, maybe they were doing everyone a favor by not catering to their selfish desires initially.

YES, an army release without points is a useless army where I and many others live because NOBODY I know plays the game without points. Everyone I know would simply rather play a different game that doesn't require the players to work out how to balance opposing sides. Name another popular, current tabletop game that gives it players only minimal guidance on how to build balanced armies. I can't think of one, so don't be surprised that the idea is unpopular with whole communities.

First, you can use wounds/models/keyword limits as a rough guide to give you balanced enough forces. By that I mean that victory will largely be determined by the player and the dice - not the power imbalance of the units, and that any power imbalance in the game would not be noticeable unless you played multiple games with the same forces in the same scenarios against the same opponent. In other words, if it isn't perfectly balanced, you won't realize it while you play. In fact, most point systems aren't perfectly balanced anyway, and aim for balanced enough - they just don't tell us that because we don't want to hear it.

Also, a bunch of the GW scenarios don't require balanced forces at all. By having scenario objectives, model limits, reinforcements, and even wildly unbalanced scenarios where the sides aren't even remotely comparable, you can have a bunch of fun experiences without even trying to aim for a fair fight. If you (or the people you play with) let go of the idea that games have to be perfectly balanced to be fun/rewarding, or that points are the only way to balance the game, you'd find that Age of Sigmar does some cool things with scenarios.

Thommy H wrote:
FWIW, the General's Handbook says that the points values for units not included there will be found in the relevant Battletome. I imagine future releases will include a page at the back with the pitched battle profiles in the same format as the tables in the GHB.

Does it? What page?

And I hope they don't go down that route. The moment they start printing points values in battletomes is the moment the points are tied to that publication and not as easy to update alongside everything else.

If it's all on one page in the back or better yet a removable insert I think that would leave them room to update it later with a GHB that says 'replace those values with these ones' and not cause too much trouble.

 Bottle wrote:

Thommy H wrote:
FWIW, the General's Handbook says that the points values for units not included there will be found in the relevant Battletome. I imagine future releases will include a page at the back with the pitched battle profiles in the same format as the tables in the GHB.

Does it? What page?

And I hope they don't go down that route. The moment they start printing points values in battletomes is the moment the points are tied to that publication and not as easy to update alongside everything else.

Page 128, right before the pitched battle profiles, last sentence of the bold text at the top. It implies that points won't appear on warscrolls at least, or it would say you could get them from the GW site too.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Who am I going to play with? I'm just curious.

You have absolutely no agency in this, at all? You can't ask them if they would mind playing an open battle? Maybe say, geez, I really like playing this way and wouldn't it be swell if one of you guys I regularly play with could do me a solid and play this way with me for a battle or two? When I played Warmachine, I found several people who were willing (not overjoyed, but willing) to play smaller point sizes and non-tournament scenarios. And there were games I played that weren't exactly the format I would've preferred, but I did it as a thanks for earlier games and generally because I'm not a completely donkey-cave.

And yes, I would consider a group of uncompromising players who only considered what they wanted to be a bunch of donkey-caves. And really, if you've only got a bunch of donkey-caves to play with, then that's not really Games Workshop's fault, is it? If anything, maybe they were doing everyone a favor by not catering to their selfish desires initially.

YES, an army release without points is a useless army where I and many others live because NOBODY I know plays the game without points. Everyone I know would simply rather play a different game that doesn't require the players to work out how to balance opposing sides. Name another popular, current tabletop game that gives it players only minimal guidance on how to build balanced armies. I can't think of one, so don't be surprised that the idea is unpopular with whole communities.

First, you can use wounds/models/keyword limits as a rough guide to give you balanced enough forces. By that I mean that victory will largely be determined by the player and the dice - not the power imbalance of the units, and that any power imbalance in the game would not be noticeable unless you played multiple games with the same forces in the same scenarios against the same opponent. In other words, if it isn't perfectly balanced, you won't realize it while you play. In fact, most point systems aren't perfectly balanced anyway, and aim for balanced enough - they just don't tell us that because we don't want to hear it.

Also, a bunch of the GW scenarios don't require balanced forces at all. By having scenario objectives, model limits, reinforcements, and even wildly unbalanced scenarios where the sides aren't even remotely comparable, you can have a bunch of fun experiences without even trying to aim for a fair fight. If you (or the people you play with) let go of the idea that games have to be perfectly balanced to be fun/rewarding, or that points are the only way to balance the game, you'd find that Age of Sigmar does some cool things with scenarios.

So, your contention is that I should spend hundreds of dollars and countless hours to buy and assemble an army and then beg friends and strangers to take pity on me and play a game/play method they actively don't enjoy? Sounds like an awesome plan. No. I don't have much agency in this. It is what it is. The community gave points-less Age of Sigmar a chance and collectively decided not to play it. I can't change that. If a new army is released without points, it's simply not an option for regular game play where I live. Yes, I could probably brow beat people I know into a game here and there, but that sounds awful.

AoS before the dark times of the GHB was GWs ultimate folley. It was what was bound to happen when they shut their doors and stopped listening to the customers. They literally thought people bought models to collect, paint and make PEW PEW noises at the localgaming store. The fact that, once the GHB dropped, AOS stuff flew off the shelved and sold maddingly is proof that people like the game, the miniatures everything, but wanted a balancing factor.

Hilariously multiple options were there the whole time.

It would be good to see a cheap update to points next year, and the year after. That be really cool actually.

 Sqorgar wrote:
You can't ask them if they would mind playing an open battle?

+1

 Kriswall wrote:

So, your contention is that I should spend hundreds of dollars and countless hours to buy and assemble an army and then beg friends and strangers to take pity on me and play a game/play method they actively don't enjoy? Sounds like an awesome plan. No. I don't have much agency in this. It is what it is. The community gave points-less Age of Sigmar a chance and collectively decided not to play it. I can't change that. If a new army is released without points, it's simply not an option for regular game play where I live. Yes, I could probably brow beat people I know into a game here and there, but that sounds awful.

Honestly, just talk to people - you may be amazed at the response. If you have a fairly large community, there is every chance that there is someone who wants to play in different ways but feels they too are locked into the predominant style - and, at the end of the day, you only need one other player to kick things off, be it in Open or (I suspect will be a richer hunting ground) Narrative Play. You can be the two playing a full campaign in the corner of a store, ignored by most of the gamers initially... but you will pull others in when they see cool battles happening, hear the cool stories coming from those battles, and watch you and the other guy doing things with the game that are just not open to them because they are locked into one play style.

It takes a bit of effort, but this is the kind of hobby that you get out whatever you put in. However, I rather get the feeling you don't really want to play like that - perhaps you are just trying to make a point here?

 Bottle wrote:

And I hope they don't go down that route. The moment they start printing points values in battletomes is the moment the points are tied to that publication and not as easy to update alongside everything else.

Agreed - a yearly GHB release would make Matched Play a very sweet concept.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Hilariously multiple options were there the whole time.

There are a large number of gamers who are only interested in official balancing methods. I know you're a big proponent of one of the community generated points systems... but if you think I'm not optimistic about GW continuing support, how do you think I feel about a random group of internet strangers I've never met? I wish them luck, but I'm certainly not hitching my cart to their star. One car accident, heart attack, new job, etc from a key contributor and the whole thing could start to fold. I've seen it before with other community efforts. The core is usually driven by the passions of a limited number of people. Remove that core and... well... the process slows dramatically.

Could be because I live in "GW Territory"... i.e., close-ish to the site of the old GW US HQ... but I've yet to meet a player who was willing to even try out a community driven points system. Believe me, I tried. I was an outspoken proponent for PPC. Never once got anyone to try it out. Eventually I gave up, closeted my models and started playing X-Wing and Armada like everyone else.

So, yes, options were there the whole time. Were they actual, realistic options for everyone? Nope. They weren't an option for me. My area just doesn't go for unofficial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
You can't ask them if they would mind playing an open battle?

+1

 Kriswall wrote:

So, your contention is that I should spend hundreds of dollars and countless hours to buy and assemble an army and then beg friends and strangers to take pity on me and play a game/play method they actively don't enjoy? Sounds like an awesome plan. No. I don't have much agency in this. It is what it is. The community gave points-less Age of Sigmar a chance and collectively decided not to play it. I can't change that. If a new army is released without points, it's simply not an option for regular game play where I live. Yes, I could probably brow beat people I know into a game here and there, but that sounds awful.

Honestly, just talk to people - you may be amazed at the response. If you have a fairly large community, there is every chance that there is someone who wants to play in different ways but feels they too are locked into the predominant style - and, at the end of the day, you only need one other player to kick things off, be it in Open or (I suspect will be a richer hunting ground) Narrative Play. You can be the two playing a full campaign in the corner of a store, ignored by most of the gamers initially... but you will pull others in when they see cool battles happening, hear the cool stories coming from those battles, and watch you and the other guy doing things with the game that are just not open to them because they are locked into one play style.

It takes a bit of effort, but this is the kind of hobby that you get out whatever you put in. However, I rather get the feeling you don't really want to play like that - perhaps you are just trying to make a point here?

 Bottle wrote:

And I hope they don't go down that route. The moment they start printing points values in battletomes is the moment the points are tied to that publication and not as easy to update alongside everything else.

Agreed - a yearly GHB release would make Matched Play a very sweet concept.

I'm not interested in building a community. I'm interested in participating in a community. Building a community is work. I already have a job. I'm not really able to commit the time and consistency required to start something new. I'm more of an "I hope I can get to the store this week to play a game but don't know if my boss is going to send me to NYC" sort of player.

I do recognize that building your own community is an option... but it's not a real option for someone who can't commit to being there on a consistent basis due to family and work commitments. Building a community is hard enough when you're starting from scratch and have the time and effort to commit (speaking as an ex-GW store manager here).