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.

For those not happy with their current player base or even wanting to try out some new scenarios or ideas I recommend TGA (tga.community) for player finding and all sorts of AoS inspiration and tools.
It may not help, but what the hell, worth a few minutes of your time.

I started getting back into Battletech. We have a nice campaign starting in January for that.

Plus an Armada campaign.

 auticus wrote:
I started getting back into Battletech. We have a nice campaign starting in January for that.

Plus an Armada campaign.

:( if only we were in the same area.

Why do people keep acting like balanced point costs and casual/narrative play are contradictory ideas? The same balance and point systems that make a good competitive game also help make a good casual/narrative game, and having a game that functions well in competitive/pickup gaming doesn't in any way prevent you from having great narrative games. GW didn't help the casual/narrative players by removing point costs, they published garbage because they're lazy and incompetent and only made a token attempt to fix their mistake when they were confronted with a choice between fixing it and watching one of their two remaining product lines die. The only people who benefit from an absence of a balanced points-based system are the "casual at all costs" crowd who have an emotional problem with the idea of anything resembling a competitive game and embrace the absence of point costs as a symbol of how "casual" the game is.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do people keep acting like balanced point costs and casual/narrative play are contradictory ideas? The same balance and point systems that make a good competitive game also help make a good casual/narrative game, and having a game that functions well in competitive/pickup gaming doesn't in any way prevent you from having great narrative games. GW didn't help the casual/narrative players by removing point costs, they published garbage because they're lazy and incompetent and only made a token attempt to fix their mistake when they were confronted with a choice between fixing it and watching one of their two remaining product lines die. The only people who benefit from an absence of a balanced points-based system are the "casual at all costs" crowd who have an emotional problem with the idea of anything resembling a competitive game and embrace the absence of point costs as a symbol of how "casual" the game is.

I kind of assume it's the "Beer & Pretzels" argument, which I've always interpreted as wanting a tabletop wargame that can be played while completely plastered. The more well written/complex the rules are, the harder it is to do that, supposedly.

 Mangod wrote:
I kind of assume it's the "Beer & Pretzels" argument, which I've always interpreted as wanting a tabletop wargame that can be played while completely plastered. The more well written/complex the rules are, the harder it is to do that, supposedly.

But a point system doesn't add any real complexity, especially since you do all of the work of adding up points before the game begins. And honestly, if you're so drunk that you can't even comprehend the rules why are you playing a game in the first place?

 Mangod wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do people keep acting like balanced point costs and casual/narrative play are contradictory ideas? The same balance and point systems that make a good competitive game also help make a good casual/narrative game, and having a game that functions well in competitive/pickup gaming doesn't in any way prevent you from having great narrative games. GW didn't help the casual/narrative players by removing point costs, they published garbage because they're lazy and incompetent and only made a token attempt to fix their mistake when they were confronted with a choice between fixing it and watching one of their two remaining product lines die. The only people who benefit from an absence of a balanced points-based system are the "casual at all costs" crowd who have an emotional problem with the idea of anything resembling a competitive game and embrace the absence of point costs as a symbol of how "casual" the game is.

I kind of assume it's the "Beer & Pretzels" argument, which I've always interpreted as wanting a tabletop wargame that can be played while completely plastered. The more well written/complex the rules are, the harder it is to do that, supposedly.

But games like x-wing prove you can have a simple game with depth and good balance.

Complex doesn't always mean well written and with GW it's usually a vague mess that's complex.

Why do people keep acting like balanced point costs and casual/narrative play are contradictory ideas? The same balance and point systems that make a good competitive game also help make a good casual/narrative game,

Why do people keep acting like lack of points and competitive play are contradictory ideas? There are wargames games I play that are also played competitively and don't have points.

puree wrote:

Why do people keep acting like balanced point costs and casual/narrative play are contradictory ideas? The same balance and point systems that make a good competitive game also help make a good casual/narrative game,

Why do people keep acting like lack of points and competitive play are contradictory ideas? There are wargames games I play that are also played competitively and don't have points.

How many of those games have an inbuilt balancing mechanic?

puree wrote:
Why do people keep acting like lack of points and competitive play are contradictory ideas? There are wargames games I play that are also played competitively and don't have points.

Because if you don't have points the only limit on how powerful your army can be is how many models you're willing to buy. One player can bring a "normal" army while the other can literally fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game. And because it is a competitive game anyone with the ability to buy that many models is going to do it every time and win effortlessly. There are only two ways of avoiding this problem:

1) Have a system that is functionally equivalent to points but uses a different word. For example, allow each player to bring 10 units and make each unit equal in power. Even though you don't see a printed point cost on each unit that example is just a point system where each unit costs 1 point. There's nothing wrong with this, but you shouldn't pretend that it is anything other than a point system.

or

2) Severely limit the available options for each player. For example, a historical game might have fixed army lists for each side in a real battle with few, if any, options for customizing those forces. It is possible to balance a competitive game like this, but it directly contradicts the "build your own army" idea that WHFB/AoS are aiming for.

And of course, regardless of any general debate on point systems in wargaming, the indisputable fact is that AoS without points is not a game that can be played in anything resembling a competitive environment. AoS can only be played without points if both players work together to create a fair match, in a competitive game where both players are trying to win the only "strategy" is deciding how much money you're willing to spend on winning.

 Kriswall wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Narrative gaming doesn't always have to be imbalanced.

I treat narrative gaming as how forces would be composed of in the story, where the bulk of the force comes from their battleline and not be min/maxed.

So your take on narrative gaming doesn't allow for an elite force of the General's best units making a strike directly against the enemy's leadership? Because that also sounds narrative to me and contradicts your theory.

No reason such scenario cannot be one where both sides have ~50% chance of winning player skill being equal. So no doesn't have to be imbalanced. It can be but doesn't have to.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I started getting back into Battletech. We have a nice campaign starting in January for that.

Plus an Armada campaign.

:( if only we were in the same area.

I know right?

And of course, regardless of any general debate on point systems in wargaming, the indisputable fact is that AoS without points is not a game that can be played in anything resembling a competitive environment.

Bollocks. 100% disputable.

Wargames can and are played competitively without points, that you may not want to go down other routes does not mean it can't be done.

 Peregrine wrote:

puree wrote:
Why do people keep acting like lack of points and competitive play are contradictory ideas? There are wargames games I play that are also played competitively and don't have points.

Because if you don't have points the only limit on how powerful your army can be is how many models you're willing to buy. One player can bring a "normal" army while the other can literally fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game. And because it is a competitive game anyone with the ability to buy that many models is going to do it every time and win effortlessly. There are only two ways of avoiding this problem:

1) Have a system that is functionally equivalent to points but uses a different word. For example, allow each player to bring 10 units and make each unit equal in power. Even though you don't see a printed point cost on each unit that example is just a point system where each unit costs 1 point. There's nothing wrong with this, but you shouldn't pretend that it is anything other than a point system.

or

2) Severely limit the available options for each player. For example, a historical game might have fixed army lists for each side in a real battle with few, if any, options for customizing those forces. It is possible to balance a competitive game like this, but it directly contradicts the "build your own army" idea that WHFB/AoS are aiming for.

And of course, regardless of any general debate on point systems in wargaming, the indisputable fact is that AoS without points is not a game that can be played in anything resembling a competitive environment. AoS can only be played without points if both players work together to create a fair match, in a competitive game where both players are trying to win the only "strategy" is deciding how much money you're willing to spend on winning.

Why? Why is it only two extremes? Why can't those two people TALK about what a good sized army would be for the game, so you don't have one person bringing a "normal army" and one person who wants to "fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game"? This is what I do not understand about your (and others) viewpoint, it's always "Well without points nothing stops you from just taking the best units!". But in a game without points, why would you? Just because you can? Your argument seems to be that people will be tools if nothing stops them from doing so, e.g. without points there's nothing to stop someone from only taking the best units in the game, and taking dozens of them, so people will do that simply because they can.

The entire idea here is that a game doesn't need points to balance it because the players should be doing that themselves. There should never be a time when some douchebag decided to " fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game" because they would have already discussed with their opponent the relative size of the game they want, and if they continue to do that then they should not be able to get any games because nobody wants to play them. A game without points needs to have its playerbase police themselves, it's not pure anarchy like you seem to think.

puree wrote:

And of course, regardless of any general debate on point systems in wargaming, the indisputable fact is that AoS without points is not a game that can be played in anything resembling a competitive environment.

Bollocks. 100% disputable.

Wargames can and are played competitively without points, that you may not want to go down other routes does not mean it can't be done.

He didn't say "wargames" can't be played in a competitive environment. He said AoS without points can't be played in a competitive environment. You brought a Stormcast Eternals army? Awesome. I'm filling my deployment zone with Nagash models. Each time you kill one, I'll summon skellingtons to fill in the gaps. Sure my army costs thousands of dollars, but the point is to win (competitive environment), right? Pay to win at its worst.

Most points-less games have some sort of other game mechanic to prevent this sort of thing. Age of Sigmar doesn't. It's a competitive game (by definition... it's a competition where one player wins and one loses) that requires neither player be particularly competitive if you want a fair fight.

puree wrote:

And of course, regardless of any general debate on point systems in wargaming, the indisputable fact is that AoS without points is not a game that can be played in anything resembling a competitive environment.

Bollocks. 100% disputable.

Wargames can and are played competitively without points, that you may not want to go down other routes does not mean it can't be done.

But that's not what I said is indisputable. Wargames in general might be able to be played competitively without points (I dispute this claim, however) but AoS can not.

 Kriswall wrote:

puree wrote:

And of course, regardless of any general debate on point systems in wargaming, the indisputable fact is that AoS without points is not a game that can be played in anything resembling a competitive environment.

Bollocks. 100% disputable.

Wargames can and are played competitively without points, that you may not want to go down other routes does not mean it can't be done.

He didn't say "wargames" can't be played in a competitive environment. He said AoS without points can't be played in a competitive environment. You brought a Stormcast Eternals army? Awesome. I'm filling my deployment zone with Nagash models. Each time you kill one, I'll summon skellingtons to fill in the gaps. Sure my army costs thousands of dollars, but the point is to win (competitive environment), right? Pay to win at its worst.

Most points-less games have some sort of other game mechanic to prevent this sort of thing. Age of Sigmar doesn't. It's a competitive game (by definition... it's a competition where one player wins and one loses) that requires neither player be particularly competitive if you want a fair fight.

First, I agree with most of what you've said in this thread.
Points are a way to help guarantee commercial success of a game and to maximize convenience of pick-up games.
I prefer AoS original but I also know that without points the game has no chance of being continued.
Even some of the most adamant 'they blew up the Old World!' rage-quitters came back.
Points, you say? Well, maybe GW moving the story along wasn't SO bad. Guess I could give it a try.
The fluff was used as a reason to quit for many when really it was because people couldn't make 'efficient' lists.

The way you balance your example is very simple but many, if not most, players won't even consider it.
That way is to play two games (reset and swap sides) for every match OR roll off to see which army you get to play.
Maybe that netlist o' doom or 100 Nagashes isn't such a hot idea when there's a solid chance that it'll be standing opposite side of the table.
Objections usually are about not wanting somebody else to touch my models but, I think, it also largely comes down to people not wanting to taste their own medicine.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Why? Why is it only two extremes? Why can't those two people TALK about what a good sized army would be for the game, so you don't have one person bringing a "normal army" and one person who wants to "fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game"? This is what I do not understand about your (and others) viewpoint, it's always "Well without points nothing stops you from just taking the best units!". But in a game without points, why would you? Just because you can? Your argument seems to be that people will be tools if nothing stops them from doing so, e.g. without points there's nothing to stop someone from only taking the best units in the game, and taking dozens of them, so people will do that simply because they can.

That's what "competitive" means: you play to win. If you can gain an advantage by bringing a stronger list you bring the stronger list and win more games. The only reason to ever hold back in a competitive no-points AoS game is because you realize that "competitive no-points AoS" is a joke and it isn't worth spending thousands of dollars on the models required to win. But you still bring every model you own as long as it can fit in your deployment zone.

The entire idea here is that a game doesn't need points to balance it because the players should be doing that themselves. There should never be a time when some douchebag decided to " fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game" because they would have already discussed with their opponent the relative size of the game they want, and if they continue to do that then they should not be able to get any games because nobody wants to play them. A game without points needs to have its playerbase police themselves, it's not pure anarchy like you seem to think.

A game that requires this is garbage, made by incompetent designers who should be embarrassed about how lazy they are. The fact that the community can attempt to salvage a terrible game by imposing their own unwritten rules about "how the game is meant to be played" and shun anyone who doesn't comply with them does not excuse making such a bad game in the first place. Nothing is gained by removing balance to the point that this kind of social pressure is necessary. It doesn't help casual/narrative players have a better game, it just makes the game worst for everyone, casual and narrative players included.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Objections usually are about not wanting somebody else to touch my models but, I think, it also largely comes down to people not wanting to taste their own medicine.

No, it comes down to not wanting someone else to touch my models, period. Even if your list is better than mine, I don't care. You can look at my models, but you can't touch them. I spent way too much time and money on them to have "I get to use your army" be a condition of having a game.

And let's also be realistic about what having to play the swap game means: taking twice as long to play a game. GW miniatures games are already the kind of all-day thing where you commit several hours to playing a single game. If you're playing on a weekday after work you're only going to have time to play a single game. And you think it's a good idea to double that?

Seems like the two sides here are "don't be a dick" and "you can't stop people from being dicks". One side sees cooperation as not only possible, but also enjoyable. The other side expects no cooperation - heck, they expect every opponent to be a WAAC TFG in every game - and want rules that don't depend on being cooperating with the uncooperative.

I have to say - I spent about a decade of my life with social anxiety so bad I could barely leave the house by myself, and I think I'm still more social and have greater faith in the kindness of other players than half the people here

One is a cooperative experience, the other a competitive experience.

Competitive games are all about doing whatever you can so long as its legal to win.

Cooperative games are about having a fun non-blowout type game between two people.

I find them to be mutually exclusive.

I find the competitive games to be the bulk of what I see and experience.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Seems like the two sides here are "don't be a dick" and "you can't stop people from being dicks". One side sees cooperation as not only possible, but also enjoyable. The other side expects no cooperation - heck, they expect every opponent to be a WAAC TFG in every game - and want rules that don't depend on being cooperating with the uncooperative.

I have to say - I spent about a decade of my life with social anxiety so bad I could barely leave the house by myself, and I think I'm still more social and have greater faith in the kindness of other players than half the people here

One side expects people to spend half an hour planning out their game, the other recognizes that nerds are not noted for their social skills, and wants something to balance that.

Then there is Peregrine. Peregrine is a glass-half-empty kinda guy.

 auticus wrote:
Cooperative games are about having a fun non-blowout type game between two people.

Which is much easier when you have the kind of balanced points-based system that makes competitive games possible. If you have a balanced game you can just say "let's play X points', put X points of fluff-appropriate models on the table, and have a fun game. With no-points AoS you have to spend more time negotiating what should be included than actually playing the game.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Seems like the two sides here are "don't be a dick" and "you can't stop people from being dicks". One side sees cooperation as not only possible, but also enjoyable. The other side expects no cooperation - heck, they expect every opponent to be a WAAC TFG in every game - and want rules that don't depend on being cooperating with the uncooperative.

I have to say - I spent about a decade of my life with social anxiety so bad I could barely leave the house by myself, and I think I'm still more social and have greater faith in the kindness of other players than half the people here

Being a selfish jerk is an evolutionary trait we didn't survive as a species by being altruistic, given that knowledge it's pure stupidity if I just trust someone I've never met before to just do the right thing.

That's why you trust rules over some made up social contract people hope everyone upholds.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Seems like the two sides here are "don't be a dick" and "you can't stop people from being dicks". One side sees cooperation as not only possible, but also enjoyable. The other side expects no cooperation - heck, they expect every opponent to be a WAAC TFG in every game - and want rules that don't depend on being cooperating with the uncooperative.

I have to say - I spent about a decade of my life with social anxiety so bad I could barely leave the house by myself, and I think I'm still more social and have greater faith in the kindness of other players than half the people here

The problem is that you can have a group of 10 gamers where 9 are friendly "don't be a dick" people and the last is a dick. The dick gamer will inevitably ruin the experience for the others. As a community manager (I used to run a game store with about 200 regulars), you have two options. The first is to focus on games where casual gamers and competitive gamers can play together, i.e. games with decent built-in balancing mechanisms. The second is to embrace being a casual community and literally tell the competitive players that they aren't welcome to participate. I've seen both options taken by different stores. I always went with the first option. In essence, as a community manager, you hope that everyone is from the first category, but you plan for some to be from the second. Doing otherwise undermines the future viability of the community as players will see the "Competitive Players Need Not Apply" sign and move on to another, more welcoming group.

I also feel like you're making a mistake and conflating "social" and "having greater faith in the kindness of other players" with being a casual gamer. My gaming community is incredibly social and incredibly kind. When it comes to playing an actual game, we tend to be competitive. It's possible to be the nicest guy in the world and still want to win by bringing your A game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 privateer4hire wrote:
The way you balance your example is very simple but many, if not most, players won't even consider it.
That way is to play two games (reset and swap sides) for every match OR roll off to see which army you get to play.
Maybe that netlist o' doom or 100 Nagashes isn't such a hot idea when there's a solid chance that it'll be standing opposite side of the table.
Objections usually are about not wanting somebody else to touch my models but, I think, it also largely comes down to people not wanting to taste their own medicine.

There is ZERO chance that I'm letting you handle the models that I've spent hundreds of hours lovingly assembling and painting. Also, if I wanted to play YOUR army, I wouldn't have planned out, purchased, assembled and painted mine.

auticus wrote:Competitive games are all about doing whatever you can so long as its legal to win.

Isn't that the definition of WAAC TFG? Are you suggesting that all competitive players are WAAC TFGs?

Kriswall wrote:I also feel like you're making a mistake and conflating "social" and "having greater faith in the kindness of other players" with being a casual gamer. My gaming community is incredibly social and incredibly kind. When it comes to playing an actual game, we tend to be competitive. It's possible to be the nicest guy in the world and still want to win by bringing your A game.

Your entire argument in this thread was that you couldn't play without points because the guys you play with won't do it. Doesn't seem like a particularly kind person to only care about what he wants without the option for compromise. But I guess we'll never know, because you've indicated that you won't ask them - which leads me to believe that you are using them as a scapegoat for your own inability to compromise on the points issue.

There is ZERO chance that I'm letting you handle the models that I've spent hundreds of hours lovingly assembling and painting. Also, if I wanted to play YOUR army, I wouldn't have planned out, purchased, assembled and painted mine.

That is but one option. What it essentially does is take something which is imbalanced and makes balanced by making players play both side, making them design their army such that it can be both victorious and be defeated. So it works to create balance without points. However, it is completely understandable if you don't want ButterFingers McPizzaGrease to handle your models. Of course, you could just backseat general, where you tell your opponent how to move their models.

There are other options. For instance, you could bring three lists and your opponent picks which one you play (and you pick his). You could force a list to retire if it ever wins three games in a row, or after one game if it lost zero units. You could play more than one type of scenario with a single list, forcing you to be more general purpose rather than focusing on steamrolling your opponent through superior firepower. You could do an escalation league where losers get to add more models to his list than the winner does. You can give handicaps in the form of tokens that allow weaker lists to reroll dice rolls. Rather than counting wins and loses, you can measure the difference in victory (lost 30 wounds versus lost 20 wounds, so a 10 wound difference), and even knowing you are going against a superior army, you can still aim for bettering your golf score. Or if the difference is over a certain threshold, the winner of the game will have a certain percentage of lost models remain dead for the following game. Maybe there is a neutral mercenary unit that joins the loser's team for the next game. And so on.

Essentially, it means a little bit of bookkeeping, where you keep track of games over a long period of time, and if any list is too strong, it gets dialed back a bit for future games (or the weaker lists get buffed up). If every game is a single serving friend that you will never play again, obviously this approach won't work, and it does mean that you might get steamrolled for a few games before you can find a new, happy equilibrium. But if you have a fairly regular group, imbalances can be corrected or corrected for without the need for points.

 Sqorgar wrote:

auticus wrote:Competitive games are all about doing whatever you can so long as its legal to win.

Isn't that the definition of WAAC TFG? Are you suggesting that all competitive players are WAAC TFGs?

Kriswall wrote:I also feel like you're making a mistake and conflating "social" and "having greater faith in the kindness of other players" with being a casual gamer. My gaming community is incredibly social and incredibly kind. When it comes to playing an actual game, we tend to be competitive. It's possible to be the nicest guy in the world and still want to win by bringing your A game.

Your entire argument in this thread was that you couldn't play without points because the guys you play with won't do it. Doesn't seem like a particularly kind person to only care about what he wants without the option for compromise. But I guess we'll never know, because you've indicated that you won't ask them - which leads me to believe that you are using them as a scapegoat for your own inability to compromise on the points issue.

There is ZERO chance that I'm letting you handle the models that I've spent hundreds of hours lovingly assembling and painting. Also, if I wanted to play YOUR army, I wouldn't have planned out, purchased, assembled and painted mine.

That is but one option. What it essentially does is take something which is imbalanced and makes balanced by making players play both side, making them design their army such that it can be both victorious and be defeated. So it works to create balance without points. However, it is completely understandable if you don't want ButterFingers McPizzaGrease to handle your models. Of course, you could just backseat general, where you tell your opponent how to move their models.

There are other options. For instance, you could bring three lists and your opponent picks which one you play (and you pick his). You could force a list to retire if it ever wins three games in a row, or after one game if it lost zero units. You could play more than one type of scenario with a single list, forcing you to be more general purpose rather than focusing on steamrolling your opponent through superior firepower. You could do an escalation league where losers get to add more models to his list than the winner does. You can give handicaps in the form of tokens that allow weaker lists to reroll dice rolls. Rather than counting wins and loses, you can measure the difference in victory (lost 30 wounds versus lost 20 wounds, so a 10 wound difference), and even knowing you are going against a superior army, you can still aim for bettering your golf score. Or if the difference is over a certain threshold, the winner of the game will have a certain percentage of lost models remain dead for the following game. Maybe there is a neutral mercenary unit that joins the loser's team for the next game. And so on.

Essentially, it means a little bit of bookkeeping, where you keep track of games over a long period of time, and if any list is too strong, it gets dialed back a bit for future games (or the weaker lists get buffed up). If every game is a single serving friend that you will never play again, obviously this approach won't work, and it does mean that you might get steamrolled for a few games before you can find a new, happy equilibrium. But if you have a fairly regular group, imbalances can be corrected or corrected for without the need for points.

Single serving friend. Clever. How's that working out for you? Being clever?

I have asked for non points play, the community tried it and decided it wasn't long term viable. As a whole, we're only willing to sink so much effort into a game that doesn't have staying power and can't translate well to organized, competitive events. It sucks, but it's the reality of the situation.

As to your other point, I have absolutely zero interest in "dialing it back a bit". Let's say I do. I bring my B game instead of my A game and I lose. Did I lose because I purposefully hamstrung myself or did I lose because my opponent is a better player? We'll never know. This isn't what I want from a game. I'm not OK with doing things by half measures. I'm fine with losing if I tried my hardest. I'm not fine with losing if I didn't. I'm also not fine with winning if I know my opponent was "throwing" the game by purposefully handicapping himself. Win or lose, I'm having fun when we're both trying our hardest. The only time I'll intentionally handicap myself is when playing a new player or teaching someone a game. In those cases, they objective isn't to win, but to teach or build community.

No the key difference between competitive players and WAAC TFG is that competitive players will do whatever they can WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE RULES and not feel bad about it.

WAAC players will do that and will also cheat if they can get away with it.

The problem is many people treat competitive players as WAAC players unfairly.

I used to be a pretty serious competitive tournament player for a very long time. I don't cheat but I would definitely max out my list and exploit bad rules because they were still the rules, and I did that because everyone else around me was also doing that and we were using warhammer as a test of skill. To play the game as a test of skill you need to not be handicapping yourself.

The problem with warhammer as a test of skill is that they have always for decades had things that were just OP and that is what you would take as much of. You lose the rest of the world and the game, which is what pulled me out of being a competitive gamer when we had a campaign group and I saw a whole other side to the game.

I know that back then I would never play anyone that would not bring a tournament power list because I would just destroy them and that was no fun for either of us. Again - I find the two playing styles mutually exclusive. I dont think you can ever have a competitive tournament powergamer ever have a fun time with a guy that doesn't want to power game and wants to field instead whats cool or interesting to the story and vice versa. In terms of community, the community leaders will always push their preferred playstyle into the community and that will usually be the default.

Those conflicting philosophies lead to being rubbed the wrong way and arguments. We see them on forums and social media pretty regularly and have since the internet crawled from AOL dial up.

 Sqorgar wrote:
For instance, you could bring three lists and your opponent picks which one you play (and you pick his).

So, either people bring three copies of the same list with tiny differences or you require people to spend three times as much money buying lists with no overlap. Remember how "pay to win" is the thing we're trying to avoid?

You could force a list to retire if it ever wins three games in a row, or after one game if it lost zero units.

IOW: "you know what the best solution to the 'pay to win' problem is? Make people buy whole new armies every few games!"

You could play more than one type of scenario with a single list, forcing you to be more general purpose rather than focusing on steamrolling your opponent through superior firepower.

The problem is that superior firepower on the scale of "I have 100 times your point value" usually wins games no matter what the objective is. The only way around it is to come up with ridiculous objectives like "lose more than one unit per turn" that have nothing to do with normal strategies for winning miniatures games and aren't fun for either player.

You can give handicaps in the form of tokens that allow weaker lists to reroll dice rolls.

But how do you know which list is weaker without a point system? I think that clearly my army with my entire deployment zone filled with the most powerful hero model in the game is a weak list and I should get lots of re-rolls.

Rather than counting wins and loses, you can measure the difference in victory (lost 30 wounds versus lost 20 wounds, so a 10 wound difference), and even knowing you are going against a superior army, you can still aim for bettering your golf score.

Again, superior firepower tends to result in superior wound counts. If you're outnumbered 10:1 you're going to lose more wounds than your opponent, and you're reduced to the "I did a little more damage than last game before I was wiped off the table on turn 2" consolation prize. And this also does bad things when horde armies are involved. If my "wounds" are a horde of expendable meatshield models and your "wounds" are powerful elite models I'm going to lose more wounds every game no matter what happens. And that means I'm going to lose every game I play just because I like a horde army.

Or if the difference is over a certain threshold, the winner of the game will have a certain percentage of lost models remain dead for the following game.

IOW, more "pay to win" rules where someone with enough money to replace the dead models can just throw in their reserves.

Maybe there is a neutral mercenary unit that joins the loser's team for the next game.

Remember how there are no point limits? If you have the models to bring that mercenary unit why aren't you including it in your list from the beginning? You'd have to have some third player provide extra models, and then you run straight into the "you're not touching my models" problem as well as making it impossible to play a game without that third person being present.

You know, casual players can be TFGs too and casual at all costs is a thing. It's sometimes called the scrub mentality.

auticus wrote:I used to be a pretty serious competitive tournament player for a very long time. I don't cheat but I would definitely max out my list and exploit bad rules because they were still the rules, and I did that because everyone else around me was also doing that and we were using warhammer as a test of skill. To play the game as a test of skill you need to not be handicapping yourself.

There's your problem. You think Warhammer is a test of skill. I'm reading the 40k rulebook now, and one of the first things it does is tell you to forge a narrative. And situations where the rules are unclear? You just roll dice and the winner gets to decide. On page 14, under "The Spirit of the Game", it says 'Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey... Your responsibility isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game... it is in this spirit that the rules have been written." Why would you seek to be competitive about something that absolutely designed to be cooperative?

Again - I find the two playing styles mutually exclusive. I dont think you can ever have a competitive tournament powergamer ever have a fun time with a guy that doesn't want to power game and wants to field instead whats cool or interesting to the story and vice versa.

Obviously, there is no compromise to found here. But since 40k and AoS are not designed for power gamers - they are obviously designed around cooperative fun - are you suggesting that the power gamers should just leave and go play another game more in tune with their uncompromising sensibilities?

Peregrine wrote:So, either people bring three copies of the same list with tiny differences or you require people to spend three times as much money buying lists with no overlap. Remember how "pay to win" is the thing we're trying to avoid?

Well, you could play smaller games, such that a single 2000 pt army could make up multiple 1000 pt variations. At least until your collection grows large enough, like the thousands of models everybody else on Dakka seems to own.

IOW: "you know what the best solution to the 'pay to win' problem is? Make people buy whole new armies every few games!"

Yes. I am absolutely advocating that players replace their entire army every few games. The whole thing. No reusing units, proxying, or simply dropping a few models. Replace the whole damn army.

The problem is that superior firepower on the scale of "I have 100 times your point value" usually wins games no matter what the objective is. The only way around it is to come up with ridiculous objectives like "lose more than one unit per turn" that have nothing to do with normal strategies for winning miniatures games and aren't fun for either player.

I think that if your opponent puts down 100x more powerful models than you do, you'd ask him to maybe choose a smaller subset of that for this particular game. Maybe point out that in a game where you are playing the Ewoks, bringing out the Death Star won't result in a particularly enjoyable battle for either side.

But how do you know which list is weaker without a point system?

Man, you're right. There's absolutely no way to judge the relative power of two different lists without points.

I'm... I'm running out of sarcasm. Are you happy? Your comments are so unworthy of actual discussion that I've run through my available supply of sarcasm. I'm just going to have to wait and reply to the rest of your inane protests once I've gone to the sarcasm store and picked up some more. I'd go in the morning, but I'm too busy replacing my entire army because I'm just too darn awesome at being competitive.

TheCustomLime wrote:You know, casual players can be TFGs too and casual at all costs is a thing.

That's not a thing.