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.

 Sqorgar wrote:
But since 40k and AoS are not designed for power gamers - they are obviously designed around cooperative fun

They are not. GW's statements about "forge the narrative" are nothing more than excuses for incompetence. The things that make 40k and AoS bad for competitive play also make them bad for casual/narrative/etc play.

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.

But you said there's no point system! You can't play a 1000 point game if you don't have a point system! In fact, the entire concept of a "small" game is meaningless. A game with no points consists of as many models as you feel like putting on the table, which means the person with the most money to buy models wins.

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.

Ok, sure, let's allow re-using units and proxying. My "fill every square inch of my deployment zone with copies of the most powerful hero model" army wins its three games, and is retired. My new army is the same as the previous army, except one model has an axe instead of a sword. And since proxies are legal I don't even have to replace the model!

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.

And here is your concession that a no-points system doesn't work. You can't just play according to the rules and have a balanced game, you have to add a layer of social pressure to keep things "fair" and "not cheesy".

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

There is no way to quantify that relative power. Which is what you have to do if you want a rules system that can assign a bonus to the weaker player (IOW, what is necessary for this to be possible in competitive play) and not just a casual thing where a player voluntarily says "hey, I'm going to win this game, I'll give you some re-rolls to make it more interesting". If your no-points system can't cope with a player saying "my army is weaker than yours, give me the re-rolls" regardless of the actual relative strengths of the two sides then your proposed system does not work.

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.

Rule #1 is a thing, you know.

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

That's not a thing.

It absolutely is a thing, and it's a toxic mess that destroys communities. If you've been lucky enough to avoid "casual at all costs" TFGs that's great, but it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

 Sqorgar wrote:

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

That's not a thing.

Yeah it is. Read David Sirlin's book "Playing to Win". Of course, Warhammer isn't really a game that falls under that general spectrum of games because it's way too varied; the closest thing would be the part where the book talks about how in competitive Street Fighter it's basically a general principle to not use Akuma when he's available because he's just so much better than everyone else.

Some excerpts that illustrate the point of having a hard ban or a soft ban, which is really the closest equivalents anything would be in a GW game although again, the gross imbalances and general unreliability of the rules prelude Warhammer from really being applicable to the thoughts in the book:

Many versions of Street Fighter have "secret characters" that are only accessible through a code. Sometimes these characters are good; sometimes they're not. Occasionally, the secret characters are the best in the game as in the game Marvel vs. Capcom 1. Big deal. That's the way that game is. Live with it. But Super Turbo was the first version of Street Fighter to ever have a secret character: the untouchably good Akuma. Most characters in that game cannot beat Akuma. I don't mean it's a tough match--I mean they cannot ever, ever, ever, ever win. Akuma is "broken" in that his air fireball move is something the game simply wasn't designed to handle. He is not merely the best character in the game, but is at least ten times better than other characters. This case is so extreme that all top players in America immediately realized that all tournaments would be Akuma vs. Akuma only, and so the character was banned with basically no debate and has been ever since. I believe this was the correct decision.

The above is a hard ban. The equivalent would be something like no Lords of War or no Flyers allowed, in 40k.

This is an example of a soft ban, which is much more easily expressed in Warhammer and many other games:

The character in question is the mysteriously named "Old Sagat." Old Sagat is not a secret character like Akuma (or at least he's not as secret!). Old Sagat does not have any moves like Akuma's air fireball that the game was not designed to handle. Old Sagat is arguably the best character in the game (Akuma, of course, doesn't count), but even that is debated by top players! I think almost any expert player would rank him in the top three of all characters, but there isn't even universal agreement that he is the best! Why, then, would any reasonable person even consider banning him? Surely, it must be a group of scrubs who simply don't know how to beat him, and reflexively cry out for a ban.

But this is not the case. There seems to be a tacit agreement amongst top players in Japan--a soft ban--on playing Old Sagat. The reason is that many believe the game to have much more variety without Old Sagat. Even if he is only second best in the game by some measure, he flat out beats half the characters in the game with little effort. Half the cast can barely even fight him, let alone beat him. Other top characters in the game, good as they are, win by much more interaction and more "gameplay." Almost every character has a chance against the other best characters in the game. The result of allowing Old Sagat in tournaments is that several other characters, such as Chun Li and Ken, become basically unviable.

You can see how this can be enforced. The equivalent would simply be not taking a Wraithknight just because you can, if you can see your opponent's list can't really deal with it. Or not just taking the most powerful units because you know it will make for a poor game. That's IMHO the kind of approach Warhammer needs to do. Not outright bans, but a soft ban by basically agreeing not to take a particular thing because it's so good that it essentially makes swathes of your opponent's army unviable.

 Peregrine wrote:
It absolutely is a thing, and it's a toxic mess that destroys communities. If you've been lucky enough to avoid "casual at all costs" TFGs that's great, but it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

It really does exist.
I have only seen it in person with Table Top Role Playing Games and board game players though.

The TTRPG player wailed and moaned about everyone else's character being super optimized and broken and complained about how they were "roleplaying their characters wrong".
Most players had average or worse build optimization except the complainer and all were better roleplayers because they did not spend half the game complaining about how everyone else was wrong.
They did not even have a legal character build though it was not good at anything even then.

The board game player may have been a WAAC player in denial because they like to yell loudly about how the game was unfair or that their opponent cheated when they lost.
It usually turned out that they had been cheating because they never bothered to learn the rules.
I heard that one person like that got banned from the local store for physically flipping a table.

 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.

what Bottle said


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

(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.

You mean points assigned to the Sons of Behemet? For RGW formations we've just been fudging a number (probably too expensive, really). I'm using the giants in an upcoming game and the opponent gets a RGW battalion...which is likely to be way more powerful. But...5 giants!!

edit: It sounds like some of you need to try some new opponents or maybe I'm just reading it as sounding much more dramatic than it is.

 Sqorgar wrote:

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?

Let me tell you a little secret about the story of the 40k rulebooks - the "forge the narrative" text box advice is comparatively new, dating from the sixth edition that came out in 2012. Prior to that the spirit of the game, that it should be based on scenario, narrative principles with a lot of miniature personalisation an self content poured in by the players was somehow veiled. By veiled I mean it wasn't brutally stuck in your eyes every two pages. My guess is that at some point GW just gave up and decided to say it straight up in a bordered text box instead of suggesting it multiple time over by different means. Naturally people weren't happy about GW telling them that. I guess the only real way GW will be able to pass on its message about how the game has been meant to be played throughout the years would be changing the name on the cover to something in the line of : "Warhammer - a mostly story telling game in the 40th millennium/a fantasy world for those unburdened by excessive ego and the need to indirectly conclude that they have defeated the opponent by better quality gray matter thus making them superiour beings"
Listen now to the cries of "Oh, is that so smart guy? Why then did GW suggest tournaments and organised play and talk about tactics and outmaneuvering the enemy in these very same rulebooks if the game was not meant to simulate the clash of two great minds? Why did it include points, showed us standard sized armies an 5-6 default scenarios to play?"

Let me tell you a little secret about the story of the 40k rulebooks - all that "forge the narrative stuff" has nothing to do with making a good narrative game, and the things that make 40k/AoS bad for competitive play also make them bad for narrative play. What "forge the narrative" really means is "stop complaining about us publishing poor quality rules, you're a WAAC TFG if you have standards and don't mindlessly give us all of your money".

Forge the narrative is a bs way of saying they give up on trying to make a decent rule set.

No one takes it seriously.

It appears we must agree to disagree. I firmly believe that you can still have a "competitive" minded game, mind you not necessarily WAAC or tournament appropriate game, and still either not have points or forego points with a little discussion of what is reasonable. The latest White Dwarf, for example, has their battle report with Stormcasts vs. Bloodbound where they don't use points just "4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" because neither of them are trying to be TFGs and game a pointsless system like some of you think always happens.

The last of the old White Dwarfs (before the weekly format) had a similar thing with Tyranids vs. Tau. The Tyranid player brought all his big monsters out to play, and had something like 5 HQs in over 3000 points, and the Tau had nothing but RIptides and Crisis Suits because they wanted a really visually impressive "monsters vs. robots" type of battle.

What, in actuality, is wrong with that approach to gaming? It's not suited at all to tournaments or cutthroat style gaming, but how prevalent is that style of gaming that it should matter when there are other great games that ARE suited to that style of play? There are much better "serious" competitive games than trying to shoehorn Warhammer into that mindset when it's an uphill battle.

WayneTheGame wrote:
It appears we must agree to disagree. I firmly believe that you can still have a "competitive" minded game, mind you not necessarily WAAC or tournament appropriate game, and still either not have points or forego points with a little discussion of what is reasonable. The latest White Dwarf, for example, has their battle report with Stormcasts vs. Bloodbound where they don't use points just "4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" because neither of them are trying to be TFGs and game a pointsless system like some of you think always happens.

The last of the old White Dwarfs (before the weekly format) had a similar thing with Tyranids vs. Tau. The Tyranid player brought all his big monsters out to play, and had something like 5 HQs in over 3000 points, and the Tau had nothing but RIptides and Crisis Suits because they wanted a really visually impressive "monsters vs. robots" type of battle.

What, in actuality, is wrong with that approach to gaming? It's not suited at all to tournaments or cutthroat style gaming, but how prevalent is that style of gaming that it should matter when there are other great games that ARE suited to that style of play? There are much better "serious" competitive games than trying to shoehorn Warhammer into that mindset when it's an uphill battle.

"4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" could result in me bringing 10 units of Skullreapers against your 10 units of Moonclan Grots. That's not gonna be much of a fight, is it? And then I'll be accused of being "that guy", even though I did exactly what I was told to do: bring 10 units. That's the issue that a lot of people have with the lack of points - it's so open to abuse, even unintentionally. And hashing out all the details to avoid that happening before you even get around to the gaming club/store, is an additional hazzle that a lot of people don't want to put up with.

I'm not saying that the "casual" approach is wrong, but a lot of people see it as adding an unnecessary workload onto a hobby that already requires a large amount of time, money and energy - is it so surprising that some people view it as the straw that broke the Camels back that they now have to do rules- and unit balancing for the game on top of everything else?

 Mangod wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
It appears we must agree to disagree. I firmly believe that you can still have a "competitive" minded game, mind you not necessarily WAAC or tournament appropriate game, and still either not have points or forego points with a little discussion of what is reasonable. The latest White Dwarf, for example, has their battle report with Stormcasts vs. Bloodbound where they don't use points just "4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" because neither of them are trying to be TFGs and game a pointsless system like some of you think always happens.

The last of the old White Dwarfs (before the weekly format) had a similar thing with Tyranids vs. Tau. The Tyranid player brought all his big monsters out to play, and had something like 5 HQs in over 3000 points, and the Tau had nothing but RIptides and Crisis Suits because they wanted a really visually impressive "monsters vs. robots" type of battle.

What, in actuality, is wrong with that approach to gaming? It's not suited at all to tournaments or cutthroat style gaming, but how prevalent is that style of gaming that it should matter when there are other great games that ARE suited to that style of play? There are much better "serious" competitive games than trying to shoehorn Warhammer into that mindset when it's an uphill battle.

"4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" could result in me bringing 10 units of Skullreapers against your 10 units of Moonclan Grots. That's not gonna be much of a fight, is it? And then I'll be accused of being "that guy", even though I did exactly what I was told to do: bring 10 units. That's the issue that a lot of people have with the lack of points - it's so open to abuse, even unintentionally. And hashing out all the details to avoid that happening before you even get around to the gaming club/store, is an additional hazzle that a lot of people don't want to put up with.

I'm not saying that the "casual" approach is wrong, but a lot of people see it as adding an unnecessary workload onto a hobby that already requires a large amount of time, money and energy - is it so surprising that some people view it as the straw that broke the Camels back that they now have to do rules- and unit balancing for the game on top of everything else?

I agree with that part, I just think that's the kind of thing Warhammer caters to. It's more than "just 10 units" it's more or less deciding what 10 units, so no "I have 10 skullreapers so I'm going to field them" it's more like an implied "10 units that make for an enjoyable game". I mean, do not misunderstand me, I definitely see the issue. I railed very hard against Warhammer for a number of years. I just found that always being cutthroat competitive got old too, so now I long for being able to hash things out and know that both our armies aren't going to be something overpowering that the other can't deal with but something that's relatively balanced to make a fun and visually exciting game. My only complaint, and this is mostly on the 40k side, is that the rules and army books are so damn expensive. AoS at least has the rules for free and all the warscroll sheets available for free, so you aren't at least being forced to pay hundreds for rules that you need to add your own stuff to like in 40k.

it's more like an implied "10 units that make for an enjoyable game"

The problem is, what exactly is an enjoyable game for him vs you? What if he wants a big out slugfest with multi-wound models and huge stats while you bring armies of hordes or just random stuff you'd think make for a better "match" but the problem is that you haven't implied anything well enough that would require more talk to begin with.

I see the merits of both, but I prefer having points because that allows for at least some semblance of balance in a standard game, narrative games tend to be one offs and pretty fun but I would not consider it a standard mode of gameplay.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
It appears we must agree to disagree. I firmly believe that you can still have a "competitive" minded game, mind you not necessarily WAAC or tournament appropriate game, and still either not have points or forego points with a little discussion of what is reasonable. The latest White Dwarf, for example, has their battle report with Stormcasts vs. Bloodbound where they don't use points just "4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" because neither of them are trying to be TFGs and game a pointsless system like some of you think always happens.

The last of the old White Dwarfs (before the weekly format) had a similar thing with Tyranids vs. Tau. The Tyranid player brought all his big monsters out to play, and had something like 5 HQs in over 3000 points, and the Tau had nothing but RIptides and Crisis Suits because they wanted a really visually impressive "monsters vs. robots" type of battle.

What, in actuality, is wrong with that approach to gaming? It's not suited at all to tournaments or cutthroat style gaming, but how prevalent is that style of gaming that it should matter when there are other great games that ARE suited to that style of play? There are much better "serious" competitive games than trying to shoehorn Warhammer into that mindset when it's an uphill battle.

"4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" could result in me bringing 10 units of Skullreapers against your 10 units of Moonclan Grots. That's not gonna be much of a fight, is it? And then I'll be accused of being "that guy", even though I did exactly what I was told to do: bring 10 units. That's the issue that a lot of people have with the lack of points - it's so open to abuse, even unintentionally. And hashing out all the details to avoid that happening before you even get around to the gaming club/store, is an additional hazzle that a lot of people don't want to put up with.

I'm not saying that the "casual" approach is wrong, but a lot of people see it as adding an unnecessary workload onto a hobby that already requires a large amount of time, money and energy - is it so surprising that some people view it as the straw that broke the Camels back that they now have to do rules- and unit balancing for the game on top of everything else?

I agree with that part, I just think that's the kind of thing Warhammer caters to. It's more than "just 10 units" it's more or less deciding what 10 units, so no "I have 10 skullreapers so I'm going to field them" it's more like an implied "10 units that make for an enjoyable game". I mean, do not misunderstand me, I definitely see the issue. I railed very hard against Warhammer for a number of years. I just found that always being cutthroat competitive got old too, so now I long for being able to hash things out and know that both our armies aren't going to be something overpowering that the other can't deal with but something that's relatively balanced to make a fun and visually exciting game. My only complaint, and this is mostly on the 40k side, is that the rules and army books are so damn expensive. AoS at least has the rules for free and all the warscroll sheets available for free, so you aren't at least being forced to pay hundreds for rules that you need to add your own stuff to like in 40k.

Well, let's try for some more varied lists then. 3 Skullreapers (Daemonblades), 4 Blood Warriors (2 with Goreaxes, 2 with gorefists), 2 Korgoraths and a unit of Skullcrushers (w/ Bloodglaives), led by a Mighty Lord of Khorne and supported by an Exalted Deathbringer (w/ Ruinous Axe & Skullgouger), a Slaughterpriest (w/ Bloodbathed Axe), a Bloodstoker and Bloodsecrator - these represent the elite of Khorgos Khul's army, his personal bodyguard.

Opposing me is your army of 4 Goblins (w/ Jabbin Spears), 2 Goblin Wolfriders (Pokin' Spears), 3 Goblin Wolf Chariots and a Rock Lobber, led by Grom the Paunch, and supported by a pair of Goblin Warbosses (1 w/ Git-cutta and Git Shield, 1 w/ Git-Slicer, both on foot), and a pair of -Shamans (both on foot). This, thematically, representing the core of Waaagh! Grom.

Now, in terms of quality, the Khornate army is superior, isn't it? The Khornate warriors are simply better, and the goblins need to outnumber me to have a chance. And to top it off, the Sudden Death rules actually give me an advantage for being outnumbered, despite the fact that my weakest elements can tangle with my opponents elites and come out on top.

This is what those who support points, or alotment charts, or standard unit sizes want to avoid - a scenario in which my army will massively outclass yours, simply because my units are better than yours. In order for the above to be a close fight, the Sudden Death rules would have to be ignored, and I'd probably have to leave out a 1/4 - 1/3 of my army. Because what's "enjoyable" and what's "fair", "reasonable", or any other such term is subjective, far beyond what something being over/underpriced is. Are my Skullreapers too cheap/expensive for what they bring? Maybe, but at least that's easier to debate than whether or not my army makes me a WAAC TFG, just because it doesn't fall within an ever more subjective definition of "casual fairness".

My apologies if any of this comes across as confrontational: I'm just trying to illustrate why points, for a lot of people, is a preferable measure over what a local meta might consider "makes for an enjoyable game".

Double-post. Oops.

 Mangod wrote:

Now, in terms of quality, the Khornate army is superior, isn't it? The Khornate warriors are simply better, and the goblins need to outnumber me to have a chance. And to top it off, the Sudden Death rules actually give me an advantage for being outnumbered, despite the fact that my weakest elements can tangle with my opponents elites and come out on top.

Many scenarios don't use the Sudden Death rules, and more than a couple scenarios do things like defending against infinite reinforcements, or holding half your army back for two turns.

Or you could simply say, "Man, I'm gonna murder you with my army and that's not going to be fun for either of us, so I'll drop the Khorgoraths and two units of Blood Warriors - and what the heck, if you lose more than half your army in the first two turns, I'll let you bring some of them back as reinforcements on turn three".

I mean, you could end up with a similar situation with points. It is entirely possible to end up with 2,000 pt armies that are unfairly matched. The only difference is that with points, you can claim the worse army is the result of being bad at the game and it is your own fault for sucking at list building, so you deserve the steamrolling you are about to receive. Which is essentially what some of the people in this thread are arguing, and that doesn't sit well with me. They are the victims here. They didn't make the points unbalanced, but are unduly punished for not exploiting the supposedly fair point system to gain every possible advantage they can.

When I played Warmachine, I was given advice that I should build an army out of my warcaster's tier list - which involved getting something like five or six units of Doom Reavers. That's a lot of time and money, and a lot of tedium, setting up multiple versions of the exact same models. It wouldn't be fun for me to play and, if I stuck around for Mk3, would've been screwed when they removed tier lists and unit spam became less effective. I would've had less than 6 months with a competitive list before needing to build a new one (that probably involved jack spam). I'm glad I didn't hitch my horse to that army building system, because it changed before the paint would've been dry (literally).

And that has happened in every game, and every time there is a change in points, some people swear it is the end of the world and that the company is ruining the game and don't deserve their money anymore - they'll buy their figures from eBay now. Or whatever. And AoS's points will probably change too - they've already indicated that the GHB may be updated yearly. What then? Gonna just sit there and whine about how you spent all this money buying multiple copies of this overpowered kit only for them to actually balance it? We're going to see that, in droves, if they change how you build the armies - and I have every reason to believe they will.

Heck, I saw something like that happen with Infinity. They recently made an optional rule to this year's ITS rules that limits you to one group of 10 orders. The current way Infinity works is that most players get a few heavy hitters, then fills their ranks with cheap cheerleaders to give those units a lot of orders. So you may end up with five or six core models, sharing 20-30 orders. Reducing your army to just 10 orders means making every unit important, and allows you to use TAGs and heavy infantry (things which were basically ignored in favor of cheerleader spam). And the change was optional. Not every tournament was going to do it. But you'd think Corvus Belli had just raped someone's grandmother with the response that optional rule got from the playerbase. You change the army building rules and the people who base their entire game around those rules lose everything when they change.

The way I see it, rather than building everything you do in the game around the points, the points should be something that allows you to do everything you want to do in the game. Buy the models you like, in the quantity you like, THEN use the point system to figure out how to turn it into an army. One 2000 pt army should be roughly equivalent to another 2000 pt army, so if you can build 2000 pts, you have a usable army. If they change the points, you haven't lost anything because you value the models on their own merits, not on their relative power to an arbitrary and unbalanced, changing point system. Points can NOT be the most important part of the game. They can not be the only way you choose what to buy and play. You will get screwed, and the worst part is, you'll blame everybody but yourself for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The problem is, what exactly is an enjoyable game for him vs you?

This is certainly an insurmountable problem that could never be solved. If only there were some way for the two of you to communicate your desires for the upcoming game before you play it. Semaphore flags? Aldis lamp? Smoke signals?

The biggest thing though, is that you typically do not have to worry about that if you avoid spam and build actual balanced lists. Like in Warmachine, I never went in for Mad Dogs of War with all the Doom Reavers. I built fairly well rounded lists, so MkIII never hit me as bad because I didn't have my "spam" list invalidated by an edition change. About the only thing that changed for me is I'd need to buy a new unit of Pikemen to make Black Dragons since they went from just being an attachment to being their own unit. Far cry from "I bought 9 units of Doom Reavers and now I can only field 5 of them".

The people who suffer from that are the ones tho look to max out on the good units and that's it. You build a well balanced army with a solid mix of everything, and not only is the game often more enjoyable because there's no skewing something, but you also are pretty resilient to anything short of massive changes to the entire game in which case everything is basically invalidated anyways (I mean massive changes like WHFB -> AOS, a completely new game). I would make a bet that people who built balanced WHFB armies before AOS usually ran into little or no problems when a new edition came out, it was only the min-maxers and "Mathhammer" folks that hashed out well this unit is 5.297359723% more effective than this other unit, so you want to min-max this one and not that one that ran into the problem.

This is a big reason why I am always in favour of building a balanced mix with armies, along with just the fact that painting the same thing multiple times is boring as hell. But more importantly it tends to be a more balanced and enjoyable game overall for everyone because nobody is just stocking up on the "good" units, you might have one or two but the rest of your army is built in a balanced way. My Flesh-eater Courts for example, I go for a good mix of Ghouls and Crypt Horrors, and I like my Crypt Flayers too even though Horrors are mathematically better. Granted, FEC really does not have a lot of variety in what I can pick, but I'm not spamming Horrors just because they are better; I have a big unit because I like them and they work well, but I would definitely consider my army balanced and fluffy.

To put it another way: Just because you CAN do something (take only the "best" units in this case) doesn't mean you SHOULD.

 CoreCommander wrote:
Let me tell you a little secret about the story of the 40k rulebooks - the "forge the narrative" text box advice is comparatively new, dating from the sixth edition that came out in 2012. Prior to that the spirit of the game, that it should be based on scenario, narrative principles with a lot of miniature personalisation an self content poured in by the players was somehow veiled.

I was under the impression that the earliest versions of 40k were quite narrative in structure, not even adding points until the 3rd(?) edition? So it was one way, changed to another way, then changed back, and you think the baloney in the middle of that sandwich is the One True Way of things?

Listen now to the cries of "Oh, is that so smart guy? Why then did GW suggest tournaments and organised play and talk about tactics and outmaneuvering the enemy in these very same rulebooks if the game was not meant to simulate the clash of two great minds? Why did it include points, showed us standard sized armies an 5-6 default scenarios to play?"

But GW didn't include points or organized play with AoS. They are a separate, optional purchase, and not one that is supported or mentioned in the majority of AoS releases thus far. That's like saying, if 40k wasn't meant to be played at 200 pts with individual figure units, why did they make Kill Team?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:
Let me tell you a little secret about the story of the 40k rulebooks - the "forge the narrative" text box advice is comparatively new, dating from the sixth edition that came out in 2012. Prior to that the spirit of the game, that it should be based on scenario, narrative principles with a lot of miniature personalisation an self content poured in by the players was somehow veiled.

I was under the impression that the earliest versions of 40k were quite narrative in structure, not even adding points until the 3rd(?) edition? So it was one way, changed to another way, then changed back, and you think the baloney in the middle of that sandwich is the One True Way of things?

Listen now to the cries of "Oh, is that so smart guy? Why then did GW suggest tournaments and organised play and talk about tactics and outmaneuvering the enemy in these very same rulebooks if the game was not meant to simulate the clash of two great minds? Why did it include points, showed us standard sized armies an 5-6 default scenarios to play?"

But GW didn't include points or organized play with AoS. They are a separate, optional purchase, and not one that is supported or mentioned in the majority of AoS releases thus far. That's like saying, if 40k wasn't meant to be played at 200 pts with individual figure units, why did they make Kill Team?

2nd had points. Even Rogue Trader had points, but Rogue Trader mandated a GM to come up with a scenario and victory conditions, although I suppose in the absence of a GM the two players could do it themselves, but it was very much NOT a "show up and play" type of game. 2nd was more straightforward but rather clunky with a lot of things (you could easily stack a ton of wargear on a character). Honestly, 2nd edition was pretty cool. 3rd completely redid the game and brought the Force Org Chart into play.

I can't speak to Fantasy, I have heard that 3rd edition Fantasy was pretty much similar to Rogue Trader (or maybe Rogue Trader was similar to it, I think WHFB came first). It did have points though, like i recall skimming through some ancient issues of White Dwarf and you had a way to determine what level (I think it used WFRP levels, not really sure) your heroes were, but it was like Level 10/20/30 or something like that, and eventually just went to different profiles.

I don't think GW has ever stated exactly WHY early Fantasy and 40k required a GM as opposed to just being something two players could hash out on their own. It might be in a book somewhere or an old White Dwarf, however. I think that mentality is still strong with them, just now it's more or less both players acting in a GM-esque role to come up with a scenario and forces rather than shanghaiing a third party into doing it for them.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:
Let me tell you a little secret about the story of the 40k rulebooks - the "forge the narrative" text box advice is comparatively new, dating from the sixth edition that came out in 2012. Prior to that the spirit of the game, that it should be based on scenario, narrative principles with a lot of miniature personalisation an self content poured in by the players was somehow veiled.

I was under the impression that the earliest versions of 40k were quite narrative in structure, not even adding points until the 3rd(?) edition? So it was one way, changed to another way, then changed back, and you think the baloney in the middle of that sandwich is the One True Way of things?

Points were always present in one form or another (atleast with 40k - I haven't been following fantasy for that long) , but were complimented with many additional suggestions and examples which were supposed to be received as the main message but were instead pushed aside by a couple of dry missions (by virtue of nothing else but being printed before the other material and labeled as "default) which were given in case you had no time to prepare for anything else. Other than that I honestly have no idea of the baloney in the middle of the sandwich that you say I'm thinking is the One True Way.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Listen now to the cries of "Oh, is that so smart guy? Why then did GW suggest tournaments and organised play and talk about tactics and outmaneuvering the enemy in these very same rulebooks if the game was not meant to simulate the clash of two great minds? Why did it include points, showed us standard sized armies an 5-6 default scenarios to play?"

But GW didn't include points or organized play with AoS. They are a separate, optional purchase, and not one that is supported or mentioned in the majority of AoS releases thus far. That's like saying, if 40k wasn't meant to be played at 200 pts with individual figure units, why did they make Kill Team?

I was talking about how previous editions were interpreted to be some kind of advanced chess by the players. My whole post was grazing on the fact that previous editions of both 40k and fantasy didn't quite manage to pass on to the players the advice on how to play the game in different ways. Since the whole tone has been misinterpreted I'm stopping here.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:
Let me tell you a little secret about the story of the 40k rulebooks - the "forge the narrative" text box advice is comparatively new, dating from the sixth edition that came out in 2012. Prior to that the spirit of the game, that it should be based on scenario, narrative principles with a lot of miniature personalisation an self content poured in by the players was somehow veiled.

I was under the impression that the earliest versions of 40k were quite narrative in structure, not even adding points until the 3rd(?) edition? So it was one way, changed to another way, then changed back, and you think the baloney in the middle of that sandwich is the One True Way of things?

Listen now to the cries of "Oh, is that so smart guy? Why then did GW suggest tournaments and organised play and talk about tactics and outmaneuvering the enemy in these very same rulebooks if the game was not meant to simulate the clash of two great minds? Why did it include points, showed us standard sized armies an 5-6 default scenarios to play?"

But GW didn't include points or organized play with AoS. They are a separate, optional purchase, and not one that is supported or mentioned in the majority of AoS releases thus far. That's like saying, if 40k wasn't meant to be played at 200 pts with individual figure units, why did they make Kill Team?

2nd had points. Even Rogue Trader had points, but Rogue Trader mandated a GM to come up with a scenario and victory conditions, although I suppose in the absence of a GM the two players could do it themselves, but it was very much NOT a "show up and play" type of game. 2nd was more straightforward but rather clunky with a lot of things (you could easily stack a ton of wargear on a character). Honestly, 2nd edition was pretty cool. 3rd completely redid the game and brought the Force Org Chart into play.

I can't speak to Fantasy, I have heard that 3rd edition Fantasy was pretty much similar to Rogue Trader (or maybe Rogue Trader was similar to it, I think WHFB came first).

Just had a look at the Rogue Trader rules, and yes, it does mention using points. Page 58: "Many gamers find it difficult if they don't have a third person to act as their GM, (...) Without a GM how can players ensure that their sides are fair? The obvious answer is to use a points system. (...) When two opponents meet it is possible for each side to consist of an evenly balanced value of troops."

This is certainly an insurmountable problem that could never be solved. If only there were some way for the two of you to communicate your desires for the upcoming game before you play it. Semaphore flags? Aldis lamp? Smoke signals?

Cute though the snark certainly isn't warrented, but that ignores the issue, what one may find enjoyable the other may not, and if neither should come to a proper agreement? I mean look at this thread for example!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

This is certainly an insurmountable problem that could never be solved. If only there were some way for the two of you to communicate your desires for the upcoming game before you play it. Semaphore flags? Aldis lamp? Smoke signals?

Cute though the snark certainly isn't warrented, but that ignores the issue, what one may find enjoyable the other may not, and if neither should come to a proper agreement? I mean look at this thread for example!

I'm not sqorgar's biggest fan (mainly because of his historically snide,belittling and often incorrect views towards warmachine hobbyists, and I hope this has changed, because though I hate to admit it, we do share a lot of ground here) , but he does have a point here.

Well, in our group of four people, we each have our own likes and dislikes. I'm probably the most 'competitive', this bring my gsming upbringing for the ten years prior to meeting these guys, m has an unhealthy obsession with tanks, p has an unhealthy obsession with homebrew, and both these fellows don't care too much for intricate and highly detailed rules, whereas I do enjoy them, and then there is are who is very 'experimental' with his tactics, or else he charges across like an Orc, and loves a high body count game (typically lots of it being his own Russians!). We all have different likes and dislikes. And we all meet up on a Friday evening, hash out one of various games we play (flames of war, various historicals. Recently lotr as a pseudo-historical, sometimes infinity), play 2 on 2 and have a great time. I can't actually remember a 'bad' game in three years with them.

We talk, we decide what we want to do, we accommodate each other. Worst case scenario is 'I'm all flames of war'ed out' but ok, we'll play your scenario this week because it does sound fun. However, next week, how about we do some historicals. I've got a really cool idea for a scenario I'd like to run'. Followed by 'yeah, ok, we'll do that'.

And It's not the end of the world if the gsme the other guy wants to play doesn't line up to the millimetre alongside your own wishes. If the divergence is too great, play someone else, but this isn't a 'fine line'. There is a massive gradient, and frankly, soft social skills and a 'social shock absorber' with things like Compromise,cooperation, a bit of emotional maturity and a bit of accommodation towards each other goes a long way towards resolving or minimising and potential issues.

Deadnight wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

This is certainly an insurmountable problem that could never be solved. If only there were some way for the two of you to communicate your desires for the upcoming game before you play it. Semaphore flags? Aldis lamp? Smoke signals?

Cute though the snark certainly isn't warrented, but that ignores the issue, what one may find enjoyable the other may not, and if neither should come to a proper agreement? I mean look at this thread for example!

I'm not sqorgar's biggest fan (mainly because of his historically snide,belittling and often incorrect views towards warmachine hobbyists, and I hope this has changed, because though I hate to admit it, we do share a lot of ground here) , but he does have a point here.

Well, in our group of four people, we each have our own likes and dislikes. I'm probably the most 'competitive', this bring my gsming upbringing for the ten years prior to meeting these guys, m has an unhealthy obsession with tanks, p has an unhealthy obsession with homebrew, and both these fellows don't care too much for intricate and highly detailed rules, whereas I do enjoy them, and then there is are who is very 'experimental' with his tactics, or else he charges across like an Orc, and loves a high body count game (typically lots of it being his own Russians!). We all have different likes and dislikes. And we all meet up on a Friday evening, hash out one of various games we play (flames of war, various historicals. Recently lotr as a pseudo-historical, sometimes infinity), play 2 on 2 and have a great time. I can't actually remember a 'bad' game in three years with them.

We talk, we decide what we want to do, we accommodate each other. Worst case scenario is 'I'm all flames of war'ed out' but ok, we'll play your scenario this week because it does sound fun. However, next week, how about we do some historicals. I've got a really cool idea for a scenario I'd like to run'. Followed by 'yeah, ok, we'll do that'.

And It's not the end of the world if the gsme the other guy wants to play doesn't line up to the millimetre alongside your own wishes. If the divergence is too great, play someone else, but this isn't a 'fine line'. There is a massive gradient, and frankly, soft social skills and a 'social shock absorber' with things like Compromise,cooperation, a bit of emotional maturity and a bit of accommodation towards each other goes a long way towards resolving or minimising and potential issues.

These things work awesomely well when you're playing with a very limited number of people on a regular basis. They do not work as well when you're playing with a wide variety of people on an inconsistent basis. The way your group of 4 regular players interacts isn't necessarily useful in a discussion about how my much larger group of people who don't always know each other well interacts. You're comparing apples and oranges and assuming a familiarity that isn't always there. Sure, I can ask Bob T. Gamer if he is willing to play XYZ way next week, but then I'm out next week and he's got a family thing after that. We might not play again for months. That's how a lot of large FLGS communities work. You play with who you can as often as you can within the framework of a number of community "default" settings.

 Kriswall wrote:

These things work awesomely well when you're playing with a very limited number of people on a regular basis. They do not work as well when you're playing with a wide variety of people on an inconsistent basis. The way your group of 4 regular players interacts isn't necessarily useful in a discussion about how my much larger group of people who don't always know each other well interacts. You're comparing apples and oranges and assuming a familiarity that isn't always there. Sure, I can ask Bob T. Gamer if he is willing to play XYZ way next week, but then I'm out next week and he's got a family thing after that. We might not play again for months. That's how a lot of large FLGS communities work. You play with who you can as often as you can within the framework of a number of community "default" settings.

No. we make it work is actually very useful in this discussion - that's the whole point. We don't do anything special.

Which goes back to what I was saying earlier about putting effort into your community. Those three guys I play with were once strangers. We got past that, a long time ago. If the people in your community are strangers, don't know each other well, then surely it stands to reason they should get to know each other? I'm not assuming familiarity,I'm suggesting familiarity with your community should be a goal in and of itself. I moved countries. I joined new gaming clubs here when I moved over. To me, this is just something that should be done anyway. Getting to know your peers isn't a burden. Not doing it is ultimately self destructive and self defeating.

It's got a lot less to do with apples and oranges and a lot more to do with looking beyond the game to the community. Just because your community is larger doesn't change the dynamics - the problems arise in large part because people see strangers, and just stop. Zero effort, zero reward. nobody tries, or makes the effort to connect, and no one puts the work in to building something 'bigger' than just a game.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Cute though the snark certainly isn't warrented, but that ignores the issue, what one may find enjoyable the other may not, and if neither should come to a proper agreement? I mean look at this thread for example!

I really get the impression here that some of the people in this thread would rather cut off their own pinky finger than engage in any sort of conversation with another living human being on the remote chance that there will be some disagreement.

Just decide with your opponent what units to use.

But what if he is an donkey-cave and uses too powerful units?

Ask him politely not to do that.

But what if he is an donkey-cave and refuses to do that?

Surely, a short discussion and a bit of compromise could lead to a game you both enjoy.

But what if he is an donkey-cave and won't compromise?

How do you know? Did you try asking him?

Of course not! He might be an donkey-cave!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
I'm not sqorgar's biggest fan (mainly because of his historically snide,belittling and often incorrect views towards warmachine hobbyists, and I hope this has changed, because though I hate to admit it, we do share a lot of ground here) , but he does have a point here.

Since Mk3 came out, which I opted not to upgrade to, I've taken a live and let live approach to the game. Since I literally can no longer play the game (and am considering selling off my collection), what Warmachine players do no longer affects me - though I'll fight anyone who says Warmachine's point system is a superior example of game balance.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Cute though the snark certainly isn't warrented, but that ignores the issue, what one may find enjoyable the other may not, and if neither should come to a proper agreement? I mean look at this thread for example!

I really get the impression here that some of the people in this thread would rather cut off their own pinky finger than engage in any sort of conversation with another living human being on the remote chance that there will be some disagreement.

Just decide with your opponent what units to use.

But what if he is an donkey-cave and uses too powerful units?

Ask him politely not to do that.

But what if he is an donkey-cave and refuses to do that?

Surely, a short discussion and a bit of compromise could lead to a game you both enjoy.

But what if he is an donkey-cave and won't compromise?

How do you know? Did you try asking him?

Of course not! He might be an donkey-cave!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
I'm not sqorgar's biggest fan (mainly because of his historically snide,belittling and often incorrect views towards warmachine hobbyists, and I hope this has changed, because though I hate to admit it, we do share a lot of ground here) , but he does have a point here.

Since Mk3 came out, which I opted not to upgrade to, I've taken a live and let live approach to the game. Since I literally can no longer play the game (and am considering selling off my collection), what Warmachine players do no longer affects me - though I'll fight anyone who says Warmachine's point system is a superior example of game balance.

Or, maybe we've tried doing it your way, and it's just too much work (on top of everything else this hobby already requires) having to pre-check what I can and cannot bring with me because I have to contact everyone else who's gonna be playing that day and make sure my army isn't OP compared to theirs? Not everyone has a tight-knit community, and not everyone has the time to pre-plan their every game.

Heck, Kriswall has stated several times that he's tried to get a casual scene going, but it hasn't worked because no one else was interested. What, should he just impose himself on people and force them to do things differently to how they want to? Just go and find a different group to play with? For quite a few people, neither of those are an option.

Frankly, being this condescendingly dismissive of an issue that other people may be having, is just gonna call into question whether or not you even have a group you routinely game with, since you come across as genuinely unpleasant to associate with.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Since Mk3 came out, which I opted not to upgrade to, I've taken a live and let live approach to the game. Since I literally can no longer play the game (and am considering selling off my collection), what Warmachine players do no longer affects me - though I'll fight anyone who says Warmachine's point system is a superior example of game balance.

It's certainly not superior, but don't be dismissive - point based pick up games do have genuine value. It's not the only way to play, nor is the the 'right way' or the 'one true way'. But it does have a very valuable place. The mistake people make is insisting it's the only way to play, and don't look beyond it.

With respect, I like, and have come around to agreeing a lot with you on the narrative gaming - for what it's worth, I genuinely feel the same way as you do about narrative gaming as being a 'positive experience'. My point was more how you have a go at how terrible WMH hobbyists are - I'll happily fight you on that one! Other than that, my preference, if the opportunity ever occurs, is beers with you, rather than pistols at dawn.

Cheers.

 Mangod wrote:

Or, maybe we've tried doing it your way, and it's just too much work (on top of everything else this hobby already requires) having to pre-check what I can and cannot bring with me because I have to contact everyone else who's gonna be playing that day and make sure my army isn't OP compared to theirs?

When the alternative is potentially having a rubbish/unfulfilling game, and ultimately burning out of the hobby I personally feel that having a chat and coming to an agreement is worth the effort. Or at least worth thinking about. Talking to people and being accommodating isn't that big of a deal.

 Mangod wrote:

Frankly, being this condescendingly dismissive of an issue that other people may be having, is just gonna call into question whether or not you even have a Group you routinely game with, since you come across as genuinely unpleasant to associate with.

He's offering solutions. That's not being dismissive. Nor condascending, unless you feel pointing out the probable ease and straightforwardness of talking to people is a problem.

Personally I'm in agreement with him here. It works, and is a fine way of making games work.

Deadnight wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

Frankly, being this condescendingly dismissive of an issue that other people may be having, is just gonna call into question whether or not you even have a Group you routinely game with, since you come across as genuinely unpleasant to associate with.

He's offering solutions. That's not being dismissive. Nor condascending, unless you feel pointing out the probable ease and straightforwardness of talking to people is a problem.

Personally I'm in agreement with him here. It works, and is a fine way of making games work.

Deadnight wrote:
It's certainly not superior, but don't be dismissive - point based pick up games do have genuine value.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Cute though the snark certainly isn't warrented, but that ignores the issue, what one may find enjoyable the other may not, and if neither should come to a proper agreement? I mean look at this thread for example!

I really get the impression here that some of the people in this thread would rather cut off their own pinky finger than engage in any sort of conversation with another living human being on the remote chance that there will be some disagreement.

Just decide with your opponent what units to use.

But what if he is an donkey-cave and uses too powerful units?

Ask him politely not to do that.

But what if he is an donkey-cave and refuses to do that?

Surely, a short discussion and a bit of compromise could lead to a game you both enjoy.

But what if he is an donkey-cave and won't compromise?

How do you know? Did you try asking him?

Of course not! He might be an donkey-cave!

I'd call the above dismissive in tone, since it implies that people aren't even making the attempt to play anything but WAAC TFG games.

Why do people keep acting like "but you can talk to people, be an amateur game designer, and create your own rules for balancing AoS" somehow excuses printing garbage in the first place? Good games don't require all of this ridiculous negotiation and house ruling, you just put armies on the table and play.

Because we want to annoy points-only players.
Since we don't have anyone who will play narrative, we have to have something to do with all our spare time.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why do people keep acting like "but you can talk to people, be an amateur game designer, and create your own rules for balancing AoS" somehow excuses printing garbage in the first place? Good games don't require all of this ridiculous negotiation and house ruling, you just put armies on the table and play.

Then go play a game that does.

we have clearly established that Warhammer is not that type of game you repeating the fact that it's a garbage game does not change the fact that people who play it needs some way to determine what is Fair since the game itself can't do it but you conveniently keep ignoring that to push your agenda that GW are incompetent and Warhammer is a gak game.

We get that already we're trying to talk about approach is to not have it that way without necessarily shoehorning in points because a little conversation goes a long way but apparently not with someone like you who keep pushing the fact that well a game without points is worthless because I'll just take the most powerful units in the game because Nothing Stops me.

What stops people from just taking the most powerful units is when no one wants to play them or when they're first gets invalidated in a later addition and they go on to a forum to whine about how the game ruined their thousand-dollar army that they bought incorrectly because they can't think of anything other than I'm a competitive jerk who wants to win no matter the cost