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.

 Kriswall wrote:

 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.

I hear this. Matched Play has become the "default" standard. If it's not in the General's Handbook, it doesn't get used. So on one hand I want GW to put points out, on the other I want them to not just because it will be a clear indicator that Matched Play is the exception and not the rule, only to be used for tournaments and leagues, not regular games. However, I feel that the community will still gravitate towards it even though it's obvious that the points are very rough estimates due to their complete inflexibility. I totally sympathize though my area is basically the same, people slammed AoS until the GH came out (I shamefully admit I was in that group), now that it's out though points or GTFO is the rule, which I no longer enjoy because I feel it puts a stranglehold on building and collecting an army.

I'd rather have seen more guidelines for approximating army sizes that don't involve points, like how in the last White Dwarf they just decided to use a couple heroes and about 10 units each, no mention of points. But people are lazy and don't want to discuss what seems like a fair and balanced game.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 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.

I hear this. Matched Play has become the "default" standard. If it's not in the General's Handbook, it doesn't get used. So on one hand I want GW to put points out, on the other I want them to not just because it will be a clear indicator that Matched Play is the exception and not the rule, only to be used for tournaments and leagues, not regular games. However, I feel that the community will still gravitate towards it even though it's obvious that the points are very rough estimates due to their complete inflexibility.

I'd rather have seen more guidelines for approximating army sizes that don't involve points, like how in the last White Dwarf they just decided to use a couple heroes and about 10 units each, no mention of points. But people are lazy and don't want to discuss what seems like a fair and balanced game.

It's not fair to say that people are lazy. We need to get rid of that mentality. I have a 9 to 5 job. I then have to fight through traffic to get to a store by 6. That store is going to close by 9. I have three hours or so to play a game. Do you think my not wanting to have to negotiate the terms of engagement every time is because I'm lazy or because I'm busy? I have a limited amount of time. I'm going to pick the game every time that lets me build a "standard sized" list ahead of time. X-Wing? Sure, show up with a couple of 100pt lists. Armada? Sure, show up with a 400pt list. Warhammer 40k? Sure, show up with an 1850pt list. AoS w/GHB? Sure, show up with a 1000pt or 2000pt list. Pure AoS? Show up with a random assortment of models and then just hope you're able to negotiate some balance? Yeah, that last one sucks when you have limited time. It's really easy to waste an evening when you make a mistake and play an unbalanced game because neither player realized how unbalancing XXX unit could be. Can an unbalanced game be fun? Sure. Is it usually fun? NO.

It's not laziness. It's wanting to get the maximum amount of fun out of a limited window of gaming. Please stop saying people are lazy when they don't want to negotiate balance terms during every game.

 Kriswall wrote:

It's not fair to say that people are lazy. We need to get rid of that mentality. I have a 9 to 5 job. I then have to fight through traffic to get to a store by 6. That store is going to close by 9. I have three hours or so to play a game. Do you think my not wanting to have to negotiate the terms of engagement every time is because I'm lazy or because I'm busy? I have a limited amount of time. I'm going to pick the game every time that lets me build a "standard sized" list ahead of time. X-Wing? Sure, show up with a couple of 100pt lists. Armada? Sure, show up with a 400pt list. Warhammer 40k? Sure, show up with an 1850pt list. AoS w/GHB? Sure, show up with a 1000pt or 2000pt list. Pure AoS? Show up with a random assortment of models and then just hope you're able to negotiate some balance? Yeah, that last one sucks when you have limited time. It's really easy to waste an evening when you make a mistake and play an unbalanced game because neither player realized how unbalancing XXX unit could be. Can an unbalanced game be fun? Sure. Is it usually fun? NO.

It's not laziness. It's wanting to get the maximum amount of fun out of a limited window of gaming. Please stop saying people are lazy when they don't want to negotiate balance terms during every game.

It is absolutely fair to say people are lazy. People have Facebook, cell phones, etc. If you're part of a regular gaming group and you make no effort to connect with the other members outside of just the time you spend gaming?

That's on you. I keep in touch with basically all my regular opponents(a couple of them I don't have contact information for, but I know they tend to be at my FLGS on Saturdays from 12 to 4 and they tend to bring a certain number of items), and most of my games actually get arranged by one of us texting the other to see if we want to get a game in.

 Kriswall wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 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.

I hear this. Matched Play has become the "default" standard. If it's not in the General's Handbook, it doesn't get used. So on one hand I want GW to put points out, on the other I want them to not just because it will be a clear indicator that Matched Play is the exception and not the rule, only to be used for tournaments and leagues, not regular games. However, I feel that the community will still gravitate towards it even though it's obvious that the points are very rough estimates due to their complete inflexibility.

I'd rather have seen more guidelines for approximating army sizes that don't involve points, like how in the last White Dwarf they just decided to use a couple heroes and about 10 units each, no mention of points. But people are lazy and don't want to discuss what seems like a fair and balanced game.

It's not fair to say that people are lazy. We need to get rid of that mentality. I have a 9 to 5 job. I then have to fight through traffic to get to a store by 6. That store is going to close by 9. I have three hours or so to play a game. Do you think my not wanting to have to negotiate the terms of engagement every time is because I'm lazy or because I'm busy? I have a limited amount of time. I'm going to pick the game every time that lets me build a "standard sized" list ahead of time. X-Wing? Sure, show up with a couple of 100pt lists. Armada? Sure, show up with a 400pt list. Warhammer 40k? Sure, show up with an 1850pt list. AoS w/GHB? Sure, show up with a 1000pt or 2000pt list. Pure AoS? Show up with a random assortment of models and then just hope you're able to negotiate some balance? Yeah, that last one sucks when you have limited time. It's really easy to waste an evening when you make a mistake and play an unbalanced game because neither player realized how unbalancing XXX unit could be. Can an unbalanced game be fun? Sure. Is it usually fun? NO.

It's not laziness. It's wanting to get the maximum amount of fun out of a limited window of gaming. Please stop saying people are lazy when they don't want to negotiate balance terms during every game.

Sorry, I don't believe that. Your shop doesn't have social media or something to arrange a game? It's literally just show up and see who else turns up, and then play a game because you both happened to be at the store looking for a game? Yes, it's absolutely lazy to want to have the setup for a game be a single question and then start unpacking models. You want that, Warhammer is not the correct game to be playing; there are plenty of other good games that are balanced around points where you show up with your stuff, and just ask how many points and then determine a scenario and start playing. Warhammer is intended to be more of a social game. It is not something incredibly difficult that requires hashing out the Treaty of Versailles to play a game, just some common sense and an eye towards wanting a fair game so you aren't just going to take the most powerful stuff because you can.

Pick-up game culture is what is killing this hobby. That's harsh, but I feel it's the truth. That's fine for something with ease of setup, transportation and play like Magic and other card games, even some other fine wargames. It's not suited for Warhammer (or historical gaming).

auticus wrote: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.

Sounds like 40K and Who's Line is it.

Sqorgar wrote: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.

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.

I really hope this is not the case. It's not that I don't mind paying $30 a year for it, but I have the feeling that GW hasn't really changed at all. Right now it's all smoke and mirrors. Especially when it comes to 40K. So I believe AoS will not be much more different than an illusion of change. So that said I fear that maybe next year the price will be the same but in two years or so, prices will double in price just to get price points. Also I am sure GW will "imbalance" point costs so people would be larger looking for next year when "new points adjustment" are made. So GW will make a reason for this "influx" of cash and give people reasons to buy it just like how they did with Fantasy and 40K. It might even make things worse because now instead of ever 4 or 2 years for a new codex update, GW can shaft entire armies now and make people want to switch armies. So instead of Flavour of the Month armies we have in 40K, we will have Flavour of the Year armies.

This can be really good if we are hopeful and positive or it can end up very badly for those of us who are very leary of what GW does and have no faith in what they do yet.

Pick-up game culture is what is killing this hobby. That's harsh, but I feel it's the truth. That's fine for something with ease of setup, transportation and play like Magic and other card games, even some other fine wargames. It's not suited for Warhammer (or historical gaming).

Yet this has been a thing in wargaming for quite sometime now (And I'm talking really early WHFB and 40k), and AoS had a massive interest regained upon gaining points, so it certainly picked up AoS rather then killed it.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Pick-up game culture is what is killing this hobby. That's harsh, but I feel it's the truth. That's fine for something with ease of setup, transportation and play like Magic and other card games, even some other fine wargames. It's not suited for Warhammer (or historical gaming).

Yet this has been a thing in wargaming for quite sometime now (And I'm talking really early WHFB and 40k), and AoS had a massive interest regained upon gaining points, so it certainly picked up AoS rather then killed it.

I can't speak for Wayne, but I put a significant emphasis on the "Pick-up game culture" aspect of his statement that you seem to be missing out on.

"Pick-up game culture" is the idea of "I don't have any free time outside of when I'm at the shop, so I won't even attempt to take a few minutes to talk to my regular opponents beforehand".

It is, in my opinion, the laziest way of gaming. It's exactly what people who cried for points complained about AoS pre-points, it's people just showing up with all their stuff for their army and figuring out a match then and there.

 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?

Yes? I mean, haven't you ever got together with a group of friends or coworkers and they all want to eat at different places? Did you contribute or compromise, or did you just sit in a corner pouting while they picked the vegan restaurant that puts too many raisins in all their dishes?

"The tree that does not bend with the wind will be broken by the wind". Or, to put it more succinctly, if you don't learn to be more flexible, one day you'll snap.

 Kriswall wrote:

I have a 9 to 5 job. I then have to fight through traffic to get to a store by 6. That store is going to close by 9. I have three hours or so to play a game.

Well... you're a smart guy. Figure it out.

I run a publishing company that is re-launching two major product lines, am writing a novel, studying for a degree, have a niece who is like an un-guided missile, and set myself a goal to cover two narrative campaigns at the same time for two different game systems.

You have no problems

WayneTheGame wrote:


Pick-up game culture is what is killing this hobby.

I might not go that far, but I get where you are coming from.

Going back to Kris though, it may seem like people are getting on your back here, but they really aren't - they are just reacting to your initial statement about what is in Matched Play and what isn't. At the end of the day, GW have already provided the vehicle you need to do exactly the kind of gaming you describe (Matched Play). No, not everything in the game will appear in Matched Play, because it really won't fit (if you ever get a chance, flick through some of the formations in the campaign books for things that would really upset the cart). Matched Play will (I hope/wish/pray) be a subset of AoS that develops into a nice, tight tournament-style set - but it will never be the full game, the be all and end all, the alpha and omega.

And nor should it be. The game can support a great deal more than that.

(if you ever get a chance, flick through some of the formations in the campaign books for things that would really upset the cart).

I want that giant one to become an actual formation, Five giants with king is just hilarious.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Pick-up game culture is what is killing this hobby. That's harsh, but I feel it's the truth. That's fine for something with ease of setup, transportation and play like Magic and other card games, even some other fine wargames. It's not suited for Warhammer (or historical gaming).

Yet this has been a thing in wargaming for quite sometime now (And I'm talking really early WHFB and 40k), and AoS had a massive interest regained upon gaining points, so it certainly picked up AoS rather then killed it.

I can't speak for Wayne, but I put a significant emphasis on the "Pick-up game culture" aspect of his statement that you seem to be missing out on.

"Pick-up game culture" is the idea of "I don't have any free time outside of when I'm at the shop, so I won't even attempt to take a few minutes to talk to my regular opponents beforehand".

It is, in my opinion, the laziest way of gaming. It's exactly what people who cried for points complained about AoS pre-points, it's people just showing up with all their stuff for their army and figuring out a match then and there.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The mentality of I'm going to just bring a "stock" army down to the game shop, see who else also decides to go to the shop today, and play against them because we are both here and both are looking for a game, and if I don't play this person then I likely made the trip to the shop for nothing. No forethought, no discussion, minimal of fuss, just I have an army, you have an army, let's play. Which is perfectly suited for like card games where it's easy to transport and easy to set up. But wargaming is so much more than that.

This is the age of social media. I frequently see posts on facebook groups for specific game shops or generic "X area Gaming" about "Anyone going to be at the shop today for a game?" and it doesn't take more than that to discuss either there or in a private message the nuances of the game beyond just "Want 1850? Sure! Ok see you then!" approach.

I like narrative games. I definitely enjoyed the first few games of Age of Sigmar I played.

The problem wasn't, as noted, the opportunity to pre-negotiate a 'size of game', it's my own ignorance of the contents of different warhammer armies.

More than once, I'd have thmy army and look for a game. The opponent I'm discussing with would bring out a...not exactly new, but new-ish warhammer unit.

"I'll use a Mortis Engine, if I may?"
"That depends. What the bloody hell does one of them do?"

The Death player in question would obviously know, but trying to translate it into how many knights it was worth (when he'd never really paid much attention to brettonians and hence couldn't speak in terms of my army) was an exercise in futility.

locarno24 wrote:

The Death player in question would obviously know, but trying to translate it into how many knights it was worth (when he'd never really paid much attention to brettonians and hence couldn't speak in terms of my army) was an exercise in futility.

For pick up games, honestly, just ask him how many Wounds it has - then add 10-20% if it is a big model, deduct that much if you know it is weak (Skinks and Ungors spring to mind...).

No, it is not perfect, but for a quick-for-fun game, it is enough to get set up fast and playing. We have been playing for more than a year now using that 'system' pretty much exclusively with no, repeat no, issues worth talking about. As you play the game more, you'll figure out what different units are like and will be able to do this more or less on the fly - you'll even be able to deal with the guys who purposefully try to twink out with, say, an all Retributor army. Becomes no big deal.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 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?

Yes? I mean, haven't you ever got together with a group of friends or coworkers and they all want to eat at different places? Did you contribute or compromise, or did you just sit in a corner pouting while they picked the vegan restaurant that puts too many raisins in all their dishes?

"The tree that does not bend with the wind will be broken by the wind". Or, to put it more succinctly, if you don't learn to be more flexible, one day you'll snap.

Your analogy is bad. It's more like a situation where 20 people like pizza and hate vegan food and 1 guy likes pizza AND vegan food. Asking the 1 guy to brow beat his friends into eating vegan is silly. He likes pizza. Whenever he eats with his friends, it'll be pizza (games that have well defined, player independent list building mechanics).

And I completely agree with your quote. I'm being flexible and going with what the community wants. If I do not bend and insist that they play without points, I probably will snap.

Pick up games are the problem...Are you for real?

Games where you can just set up and go are awesome because you can go in knowing no one's getting steamrolled, you can stress free just enjoy the game and have a laugh with the other guy.

Negotiations with a stranger present so many needless hassles, you can so easily put someone's nose out of joint telling them what they can and can't use.

Even with friends not using points never ended well one side always dominated no matter how hard we tried to balance it.

Warhammer as a pick-up game sounds like a dicey experience - will there be an opponent? Will the lists be somewhat even? Will the other person have the same attitude towards the game?

Worth arranging a day in advance.

hobojebus wrote:
Pick up games are the problem...Are you for real?

Games where you can just set up and go are awesome because you can go in knowing no one's getting steamrolled, you can stress free just enjoy the game and have a laugh with the other guy.

Negotiations with a stranger present so many needless hassles, you can so easily put someone's nose out of joint telling them what they can and can't use.

Even with friends not using points never ended well one side always dominated no matter how hard we tried to balance it.

Right, but Warhammer doesn't work that way. It never really did even in the olden days when it was more pickup game friendly than it is now. The problem in general is not necessarily that people want a pickup game experience, it's that they are trying to shoehorn Warhammer into becoming that. If I want a game where I can just turn up with X points, expect an opponent to do the same, roll up a scenario and start deploying, I'll play Warmachine instead because that's what Warmachine caters to and makes it super simple. There are simply too many variables in any Warhammer game to be conducive to that sort of approach, even when it's tacked on a la General's Handbook in an abstract way that ends up being treated as gospel because omg points!

At the same time, and I apologize to always harp on this, I find it absolutely on the players. People COULD discuss a game with an opponent and actually try to socialize and make friends with people who share the hobby. Instead it's like people want the fast food of gaming; roll up, ask how many points, play a game, and leave and not care about fostering the community or having a regular opponent. I even sometimes see it among players who are familiar with each other and it boggles my mind that the thought never crosses their heads to do more than just have a group that goes down to the shop to play random games. I would love to have a regular group of 4-5 others, even 2-3 others, that frequently play each other because the possibilities are limitless for coming up with campaigns and custom scenarios and really show everyone else what can be done.

WayneTheGame wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Pick up games are the problem...Are you for real?

Games where you can just set up and go are awesome because you can go in knowing no one's getting steamrolled, you can stress free just enjoy the game and have a laugh with the other guy.

Negotiations with a stranger present so many needless hassles, you can so easily put someone's nose out of joint telling them what they can and can't use.

Even with friends not using points never ended well one side always dominated no matter how hard we tried to balance it.

Right, but Warhammer doesn't work that way. It never really did even in the olden days when it was more pickup game friendly than it is now. The problem in general is not necessarily that people want a pickup game experience, it's that they are trying to shoehorn Warhammer into becoming that. If I want a game where I can just turn up with X points, expect an opponent to do the same, roll up a scenario and start deploying, I'll play Warmachine instead because that's what Warmachine caters to and makes it super simple. There are simply too many variables in any Warhammer game to be conducive to that sort of approach, even when it's tacked on a la General's Handbook in an abstract way that ends up being treated as gospel because omg points!

At the same time, and I apologize to always harp on this, I find it absolutely on the players. People COULD discuss a game with an opponent and actually try to socialize and make friends with people who share the hobby. Instead it's like people want the fast food of gaming; roll up, ask how many points, play a game, and leave and not care about fostering the community or having a regular opponent. I even sometimes see it among players who are familiar with each other and it boggles my mind that the thought never crosses their heads to do more than just have a group that goes down to the shop to play random games.

Warhammer has historically worked that way. Warhammer 40k currently works that way. "Hey, you wanna play an 1850 point game?" Age of Sigmar w/GHB currently works that way. "Hey, you wanna play a 2000 point game?" You need to get past "the olden days". Those days are old. The gaming industry has moved on. How many commercially successful table top games/board games have a lengthy, vague, discussion/trial and error based system for deciding how any given game is going to be played? It works for some people, but it's clearly not what the industry or the market wants. The fact that Age of Sigmar sales ramped up when the GHB came out should be a clue that the market wants points. Sure, a vocal minority can complain, but a vocal minority doesn't push the sales numbers. A pretty large silent group clearly also wanted points.

Also, out of curiosity, how do you define gaming community? For me, it's literally a group that goes down to the shop to play random games. I might become friends with some of these people and develop a relationship OUTSIDE the context of the gaming group, but that's separate from the gaming community.

 Kriswall wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Pick up games are the problem...Are you for real?

Games where you can just set up and go are awesome because you can go in knowing no one's getting steamrolled, you can stress free just enjoy the game and have a laugh with the other guy.

Negotiations with a stranger present so many needless hassles, you can so easily put someone's nose out of joint telling them what they can and can't use.

Even with friends not using points never ended well one side always dominated no matter how hard we tried to balance it.

Right, but Warhammer doesn't work that way. It never really did even in the olden days when it was more pickup game friendly than it is now. The problem in general is not necessarily that people want a pickup game experience, it's that they are trying to shoehorn Warhammer into becoming that. If I want a game where I can just turn up with X points, expect an opponent to do the same, roll up a scenario and start deploying, I'll play Warmachine instead because that's what Warmachine caters to and makes it super simple. There are simply too many variables in any Warhammer game to be conducive to that sort of approach, even when it's tacked on a la General's Handbook in an abstract way that ends up being treated as gospel because omg points!

At the same time, and I apologize to always harp on this, I find it absolutely on the players. People COULD discuss a game with an opponent and actually try to socialize and make friends with people who share the hobby. Instead it's like people want the fast food of gaming; roll up, ask how many points, play a game, and leave and not care about fostering the community or having a regular opponent. I even sometimes see it among players who are familiar with each other and it boggles my mind that the thought never crosses their heads to do more than just have a group that goes down to the shop to play random games.

Warhammer has historically worked that way. Warhammer 40k currently works that way. "Hey, you wanna play an 1850 point game?" Age of Sigmar w/GHB currently works that way. "Hey, you wanna play a 2000 point game?" You need to get past "the olden days". Those days are old. The gaming industry has moved on. How many commercially successful table top games/board games have a lengthy, vague, discussion/trial and error based system for deciding how any given game is going to be played? It works for some people, but it's clearly not what the industry or the market wants. The fact that Age of Sigmar sales ramped up when the GHB came out should be a clue that the market wants points. Sure, a vocal minority can complain, but a vocal minority doesn't push the sales numbers. A pretty large silent group clearly also wanted points.

Also, out of curiosity, how do you define gaming community? For me, it's literally a group that goes down to the shop to play random games. I might become friends with some of these people and develop a relationship OUTSIDE the context of the gaming group, but that's separate from the gaming community.

To me the gaming community is closer to what would be a gaming club in Europe, a regular group that plays games (usually several, not limited to just Warhammer), but generally not "Hey I'm going to the shop, anyone up for a game?" type of random comments, and generally not limited to a specific game store, or any store at all, thus avoiding the "turf wars" type of mentality that many game stores seem to have where you "only" go to X shop and other game stores are "the enemy". however I freely admit it's a pipe dream of mine to have an actual gaming club rather than a store that everyone congregates at and you then have your "cliques" of card gamers, Warhammer players, Warmachine players, board game players, etc. it's just a gaming club so for example if someone found this cool lesser known wargame online, they can get a starter set and reasonably expect others to give it a whirl and see if they are interested, as opposed to "game store" mentality where it tends to be only a handful of games played at that store are played, and anything else is typically dismissed without so much as trying it out.

Also you mention Warhammer being that way, but GW themselves seem to constantly push the notion that Warhammer is NOT a "pick up game" type of game, despite the fact that it kinda sorta maybe if you squint really hard can fill that role because it has something resembling points. Warhammer always seemed closer to ye olde historical wargaming, something that you played with a regular group or club and made like an entire day out of it where you could come up with your own things to enhance it.

Also you mention Warhammer being that way, but GW themselves seem to constantly push the notion that Warhammer is NOT a "pick up game" type of game,

GW also used to believe that the rules were useless and that the only thing people wanted were the models, and that they should ignore the community at large.

Needless to say, going exactly by GW's word isn't the best idea.

despite the fact that it kinda sorta maybe if you squint really hard can fill that role because it has something resembling points

"Resembling"? It does have points, one can indeed play it that way if they or their club wants to play it that way.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It does have points, one can indeed play it that way if they or their club wants to play it that way.

But apparently it is impossible to NOT play that way...

I find the discussion of laziness/game negotiation similarly humorous, since the GHB points still need some level of negotiation to work. A strong GHB list will utterly crush a weak one, potentially needing only two rounds to do so, even. So the players still have to make sure their on roughly equal terms.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It does have points, one can indeed play it that way if they or their club wants to play it that way.

But apparently it is impossible to NOT play that way...

If a group doesn't want to play without points, they don't have to.

Yep. The GHB point system is pretty bonkers bad in regards to balance.

If you want to show up and play a game and have a good game without discussion you better be rocking the current tournament meta list, or you're going to have a bad time because if your opponent is doing that (which often seems to be the case) you're going to have a bad time.

Which I think is what the default expectation is in regards to pick up gaming without any pregame talk or "negotiation". That you are bringing a bad ass A list and expect your opponent to do the same.

Pick up game culture is not new. Its been a strong thing since the early 2000s or so in regards to warhammer.

No Points was never going to fly because pick up game culture requires points, and pick up game culture is the default and vast majority of interaction with the game I find (again through personal anecdote as well as internet anecdote).

Pick up game culture, like any culture, wants certain things and hates certain others. The problem, as in anything, is if you are not part of that culture and are a minority.

Where I am, you won't get any no point games of AOS either. Where I am, community driven point systems were for the most part universally rejected except for the events I ran which I used my azyr comp for, but even then there was griping that it wasn't "official" because "official" is the standard expected norm regardless of how lol-awful the official platform is.

I play for storytelling and campaigning. I am also in my area a huge minority so that means if I want to play AOS in that way I have to put forth the work to assemble that and its going to be a small tiny percentage of the player base that has any interest in that kind of thing because tournament metas are not something that I enjoy playing in.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I find the discussion of laziness/game negotiation similarly humorous, since the GHB points still need some level of negotiation to work. A strong GHB list will utterly crush a weak one, potentially needing only two rounds to do so, even. So the players still have to make sure their on roughly equal terms.

I disagree. I don't think this is a points issue. It's an army construction/player skill issue. The points let you know how much stuff you can bring. It's still up to you to consider synergies and to bring a variety of things to combat a variety of challenges. Any given system where you can pick your list will have weak lists and strong lists. I play Star Wars Armada. I can take 400 points of capital ships with no upgrades and no squadron support. It's a weak list and I'm likely to lose every game I play. This doesn't mean the points system in Armada is bad or that I need to negotiate with my opponent to modify the points... it just means I made a bad list. I need to get better at the game and better at choosing my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It does have points, one can indeed play it that way if they or their club wants to play it that way.

But apparently it is impossible to NOT play that way...

Not impossible, but can be extremely challenging and generally not worth the effort for many players when you can't get community buy-in. It's such an uphill battle for me that I'm not considering it a realistic option.

 Kriswall wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I find the discussion of laziness/game negotiation similarly humorous, since the GHB points still need some level of negotiation to work. A strong GHB list will utterly crush a weak one, potentially needing only two rounds to do so, even. So the players still have to make sure their on roughly equal terms.

I disagree. I don't think this is a points issue. It's an army construction/player skill issue. The points let you know how much stuff you can bring. It's still up to you to consider synergies and to bring a variety of things to combat a variety of challenges. Any given system where you can pick your list will have weak lists and strong lists. I play Star Wars Armada. I can take 400 points of capital ships with no upgrades and no squadron support. It's a weak list and I'm likely to lose every game I play. This doesn't mean the points system in Armada is bad or that I need to negotiate with my opponent to modify the points... it just means I made a bad list. I need to get better at the game and better at choosing my army.

I would agree with you if the GHB balance were better, but the thing is the difference between lists can mean that there isn't even a real 'game' in the first place. Losing a game with a weak list is one thing, but bringing an average list and doing little more than picking up your models as they die is quite another. And the variation in GHB cost-effectiviness means such a thing can easily happen by chance, it doesn't even need a matchup of a bad player vs a good one, just two players who have different ideas of where the competitiveness scale is.

For example, at my flgs we have a more casual meta; the lists we use aren't bad but they also aren't min-maxed very much. Recently I have brought in a competitive list to practice for an upcoming tournament, and knowing the list is pretty strong I warned my buds what I was doing, telling them to bring the strongest lists they could. Even with my opponents bringing their best the games were completely one-sided simply because my list was built from the ground up for competitive play; they couldn't match it with the models they owned despite knowing ahead of time what was coming. And that's the point; the difference in power is so great that players might not even be able to make an appropriate list no matter how good at it they are simply because they don't own the right models. And these aren't players with small collections I am talking about; any of us could throw down 5000+ points on the board easy and these are 2000 point games. When it comes down to a player potentially needing to buy a whole new army just to have a chance, I'd say that some level of negotiation is required, at the very least on a community level to ensure everyone is on the same page in terms of power-scale.

I saw a fb post on this very topic earlier today. The meme was basically sun tzu saying if you are prepared, you win before the game starts, and that this is what wargamers should strive for (to win in the list building phase so the game is already won before you start)

Definitely competing philosophies (I'm more a chess guy that wants two actual even forces fighting where table skill is more important than spreadsheet skill).

Much of my meta is competitive, so their answer is that list building is a skill and if you want to have a good game you need to chase the meta and not field weak armies.

To add to that, I think listbuilding-skill is both a valid and key part of the wargaming experience. But to to put in Sun Tzu terms, having the right balance of spearmen, crossbowmen, and cavalry doesn't mean much if your enemy is entrenched with gatling guns. This is to say that having units so much stronger than others actually takes skill away from listbuilding; just use the OP stuff or a cookie-cutter tournament list rather than weighing the odds or synergies of what you have. Don't have the right models for a tournament list? Too bad.

Apparently people who don't necessarily want to play with people outside of a club or store or have everyone's personal contact information are lazy and bad gamers and deserve bad rulesets.

Seriously people, not everyone has tight gaming pals for various reasons. Some people can really only ever get in a pickup game once in a blue moon, some people just aren't that tight with the club people, and some people just want a quick and easy setup method to play games with whoever without spending time negotiating everything. That doesn't make them lazy or bad or anything else. This is a past-time hobby, not a second job, not a sports team, or anything else, and it's not unreasonable for them to want a quick and easy pickup style of play without having to jump through hoops with rules, make game dates, etc. That AoS has such a method now isn't because of bad people doing evil things to the game, it's because quite frankly most people just want to be able to pick up and go.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
To add to that, I think listbuilding-skill is both a valid and key part of the wargaming experience. But to to put in Sun Tzu terms, having the right balance of spearmen, crossbowmen, and cavalry doesn't mean much if your enemy is entrenched with gatling guns. This is to say that having units so much stronger than others actually takes skill away from listbuilding; just use the OP stuff or a cookie-cutter tournament list rather than weighing the odds or synergies of what you have. Don't have the right models for a tournament list? Too bad.

Precisely. Warhammer and 40k has always been about how good you are at basic 6th grade math and figuring out the 10% OP units and just using that, and the rest of the 90% of the units are pretty hosed in that environment.