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.

WayneTheGame wrote:
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.

No, you're not just trying to talk about how to fix a bad game, you're defending the game. You (and the other AoS defenders) are saying that points aren't necessary, social pressure to avoid taking powerful lists is just as good as a balanced game, etc. If you want to leave it at "AoS is garbage and needs a point system for balancing, now how do we fix the game" that's fine and I'm not going to criticize people for trying to come up with house rules to make AoS work. But if you insist on defending AoS I'm going to keep telling you how you're wrong.

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

And you honestly don't see a problem with acting like everyone who takes a powerful list is some kind of TFG?

WayneTheGame wrote:

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.

I don't think the case is that extreme, but even without intending to create an overpowered army, one can build what they think is a relatively fluffy, fun, and interesting army and be a total one-sided hardcounter against an opponent's army because the two players involved have different ideas of what 'fun and fluffy" is or the forces just aren't what really would fight each other in the game universe, and that will result in lots of unfun games even with both players trying to build fun armies. Points systems and army construction rules don't eliminate that problem (especially when they're as bad as GW's) but they do offer ready made solutions that dramatically mitigate them.

Without those, you have to revert to the social pressures which has drawbacks as well. Having to ask someone to change a lovingly crafted thematic army or ask for special bonuses for your army because "you think it won't be fun otherwise" is a good way to get labelled an unfun whining TFG if they're not a close gaming pal with whom you have such an understanding and similar mindset. With a points system and army construction rules you can at least work to try and build a force that knows it won't face more than X number of Y type units and won't be facing a 4000pt equivalent force with 1500pt equivalent force of your own units without explicitely setting up such a game.

 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? Not everyone has a tight-knit community, and not everyone has the time to pre-plan their every game.

It's not rocket science. If you have a game against a total stranger that you had a good time with (using points, if you wish), just say, "Hey buddy, that was a fun game. I'd definitely be down to play again some day. Hey, here's a gmail address (or facebook page or twitter account or whatever) that I can be contacted at if you ever want to set up a game in the future." Heck, start a facebook group so that they can contact not only you, but each other, and set up a weekly game.

My Warmachine group had a loose 5 hour window on Saturdays that people would play during, with a Facebook group that they would use to send messages like, "I'm interested in trying out a new faction on Saturday. Anybody interested in playing a Battle Box game with me?". Before I'd go, I'd check the group and see what players had committed to coming. Sometimes, someone would post something like, "I can't make it this Saturday due to other obligations, but if anyone is interested, I'm open Wednesday night for a game or two starting after 6". Most of the people in the group had the problem of not having enough games to play, so any opportunity to get a game in usually was jumped at. And just like that, through simple social media communication, we were able to decide what to bring, when to show up, and plan non-standard games.

There's a lot of really easy, obvious ways to set up a group like that. One, you could post in Dakka's own local gaming forum to see if you can find like minded individuals near you. There are several other LFG forums and groups that I know of, so if you don't have success in one, try another one. Two, you could create a small flyer advertising a weekly game session and ask your gaming store if they would be willing to post it near the tables, or mention it to customers who come in interested in playing. Three, if people come in while you are playing and take an interest in the game, engage them in a civil conversation about the game. Perhaps even invite them to play with a loaned group of starter models (grab a cheap starter box for just that kind of situation if you can't stand to let filthy hands touch your immaculate works of art - it'll be worth the money in the long run, if you end up with a good gaming group because of it). Four, some gaming stores have painting nights or specific days set aside for specific games. Drop by and chat with people, even if you don't play those particular games. You might discover that the games are pretty fun, or that they play other games too.

These are all valid solutions that absolutely can and will work, if you are willing to have a modicum of trust in your fellow gamer and are willing to put in the minimum amount of effort and compromise a little.

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.

Ah, man. You hurt my feelings. It's okay. I know you didn't really mean it. We'll get through this.

 Sqorgar wrote:
It's not rocket science. If you have a game against a total stranger that you had a good time with (using points, if you wish), just say, "Hey buddy, that was a fun game. I'd definitely be down to play again some day. Hey, here's a gmail address (or facebook page or twitter account or whatever) that I can be contacted at if you ever want to set up a game in the future." Heck, start a facebook group so that they can contact not only you, but each other, and set up a weekly game.

My Warmachine group had a loose 5 hour window on Saturdays that people would play during, with a Facebook group that they would use to send messages like, "I'm interested in trying out a new faction on Saturday. Anybody interested in playing a Battle Box game with me?". Before I'd go, I'd check the group and see what players had committed to coming. Sometimes, someone would post something like, "I can't make it this Saturday due to other obligations, but if anyone is interested, I'm open Wednesday night for a game or two starting after 6". Most of the people in the group had the problem of not having enough games to play, so any opportunity to get a game in usually was jumped at. And just like that, through simple social media communication, we were able to decide what to bring, when to show up, and plan non-standard games.

There's a lot of really easy, obvious ways to set up a group like that. One, you could post in Dakka's own local gaming forum to see if you can find like minded individuals near you. There are several other LFG forums and groups that I know of, so if you don't have success in one, try another one. Two, you could create a small flyer advertising a weekly game session and ask your gaming store if they would be willing to post it near the tables, or mention it to customers who come in interested in playing. Three, if people come in while you are playing and take an interest in the game, engage them in a civil conversation about the game. Perhaps even invite them to play with a loaned group of starter models (grab a cheap starter box for just that kind of situation if you can't stand to let filthy hands touch your immaculate works of art - it'll be worth the money in the long run, if you end up with a good gaming group because of it). Four, some gaming stores have painting nights or specific days set aside for specific games. Drop by and chat with people, even if you don't play those particular games. You might discover that the games are pretty fun, or that they play other games too.

These are all valid solutions that absolutely can and will work, if you are willing to have a modicum of trust in your fellow gamer and are willing to put in the minimum amount of effort and compromise a little.

Or you could just play a different game where the only organization required is having the store designate one night for that game. Obviously it's possible to invest extra work in organizing people, but why should we have to do that? Why should I have any interest in playing a game where I have to do all of that setup work when I can instead just show up at the regularly scheduled time and play a game against whoever happens to be there?

 Peregrine wrote:
Or you could just play a different game where the only organization required is having the store designate one night for that game. Obviously it's possible to invest extra work in organizing people, but why should we have to do that? Why should I have any interest in playing a game where I have to do all of that setup work when I can instead just show up at the regularly scheduled time and play a game against whoever happens to be there?

Honestly, if you think the game is crap and the community isn't worth belonging to, I have to ask why the hell you bother with it and not just take up a different hobby more in tune with your temperament, like yelling obscenities at cats or stalking sorority girls.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Honestly, if you think the game is crap and the community isn't worth belonging to, I have to ask why the hell you bother with it and not just take up a different hobby more in tune with your temperament, like yelling obscenities at cats or stalking sorority girls.

Because AoS provides a useful example of how not to make a game. People reading this discussion may go on to make their own rules someday, and it benefits them to see bad game design pointed out. And if your best argument in defense of AoS is "WHY DO YOU CARE!?!?!?!?!" then I think it has been established that AoS is a bad game.

Also, Rule #1 is a thing. Please follow it.

This will be the only In Thread General Warning given.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

In particular:

Rule 1: Be Polite
This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Honestly, if you think the game is crap and the community isn't worth belonging to, I have to ask why the hell you bother with it and not just take up a different hobby more in tune with your temperament, like yelling obscenities at cats or stalking sorority girls.

Because AoS provides a useful example of how not to make a game. People reading this discussion may go on to make their own rules someday, and it benefits them to see bad game design pointed out. And if your best argument in defense of AoS is "WHY DO YOU CARE!?!?!?!?!" then I think it has been established that AoS is a bad game.

Also, Rule #1 is a thing. Please follow it.

Your own attitude is pretty condescending for somebody hiding behind the Forum rules. There is something in between anything goes and points that is what we are trying to discuss here.

From my own past posts I have slammed GW as much as anyone else here however I feel that there is something in between taking two points just because people don't want to actually talk or socialize and would rather show up at a game shop on a random night and hope that someone else had the same idea rather than actually try and organize something like a true Community would do.

WayneTheGame wrote:
There is something in between anything goes and points that is what we are trying to discuss here

And that "in between" is worse than having a working point system. There is no benefit to removing points, only problems.

You're right.

This thread was like a blast from the past. Is it summer 2015 again? Did I dream the awesome 12 months where the community took Age of Sigmar and created loads of awesome fanmade systems, that then led to GW listening to the community and creating an official points system based on those fan-comps!?

All I want to add is: Playing AoS with points from the GHB is really fun. So much fun. And GW are now taking an awesome approach with everything from community relations to an ongoing commitment to make AoS a fun tournament game. Warlords looked like it was a rip roaring success and I can't wait to see what comes next. In the mean time I am going to be having fun playing pointed games of AoS whenever I get the chance.

:-)

GW didn't listen to the community they listened to their accountants and responded by doing the minimum amount of work.

Ghb isn't balanced it's better than no points but AoS isn't fixed it's still a poor game compared to other systems out there.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Honestly, if you think the game is crap and the community isn't worth belonging to, I have to ask why the hell you bother with it and not just take up a different hobby more in tune with your temperament, like yelling obscenities at cats or stalking sorority girls.

Because AoS provides a useful example of how not to make a game. People reading this discussion may go on to make their own rules someday, and it benefits them to see bad game design pointed out. And if your best argument in defense of AoS is "WHY DO YOU CARE!?!?!?!?!" then I think it has been established that AoS is a bad game.

Also, Rule #1 is a thing. Please follow it.

And here I thought Peregrine was just defending points, but is instead taking pot shots at AoS as a whole.. Not surprising, but it has not been established at all that AoS is a bad game... Not exactly great without points, but as a whole is decent enough.

hobojebus wrote:
GW didn't listen to the community they listened to their accountants and responded by doing the minimum amount of work.

Ghb isn't balanced it's better than no points but AoS isn't fixed it's still a poor game compared to other systems out there.

GW invited key tournament organisers to work with them on the GHB, as well as hired a key tournament figure into the Warhammer TV team, and opened up communication channels on Social Media.

The GHB points system is good enough to allow lots of varied builds at tournament level, and works great for a PUG environment too. Sure there can be a big disparity between the good lists and bad lists, but there's lots of good lists rather than a stagnant meta. GW have already shown they are keen to improve the balance moving forward too.

The future's bright in my opinion.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Honestly, if you think the game is crap and the community isn't worth belonging to, I have to ask why the hell you bother with it and not just take up a different hobby more in tune with your temperament, like yelling obscenities at cats or stalking sorority girls.

Because AoS provides a useful example of how not to make a game. People reading this discussion may go on to make their own rules someday, and it benefits them to see bad game design pointed out. And if your best argument in defense of AoS is "WHY DO YOU CARE!?!?!?!?!" then I think it has been established that AoS is a bad game.

Also, Rule #1 is a thing. Please follow it.

And here I thought Peregrine was just defending points, but is instead taking pot shots at AoS as a whole.. Not surprising, but it has not been established at all that AoS is a bad game... Not exactly great without points, but as a whole is decent enough.

Yeah. He basically uses any Warhammer discussion to say how GW designers are incompetent morons who should be fired.

Anyways, I don't have a real issue with the GHB points, other than a base disconnect that since it's inflexible, you have to have some leeway and cannot 100% adhere to points as written, despite the fact people seem to treat any notion of points as being carved in stone and must never deviate from. My main "issue" if it can even be considered that is the idea that points are necessary and that points somehow balance what was unbalanced before, which tends to boil down to "people will be complete jerks to others without something stopping them". I have zero problem with using points, I just wish people weren't so narrow-minded and inflexible that they refuse to actually talk about something first and instead need to fit it into the existing mindset, but again that's "pickup game culture" in the US. No real community just a bunch of "customers" who go to a specific store and all happen to play the same game. So what you have is instead of a community coming together because there are 10 people who all regularly see each other (although maybe not play against each other) at a game shop, and thus deciding hey maybe we should form a gaming club and expand out because all of us play the game, it stays as what is functionally like most people's relationships with their co-workers are. Again I mostly speak to experience but I see too much of what is basically a "turf" around a particular store, with rivalries forming between stores and animosity growing at people who tend to frequent this store instead of that store, when what I should be seeing is a community and a club forming that goes to all of the stores in the area, without being tied down to any particular one, or even needing a game store at all to form around.

All in all I find it very primal from a psychological point of view, and I imagine that this must be similar to how human civilization first formed, albeit in an extremely simplified version of it. And again, this mindset in regards to games seems to be a decidedly US (perhaps North American, I do not know about Canada) thing, as you are much more likely to find a gaming club that doesn't care about meeting at any one shop (and as a result are not beholden to what a particular shop sells, which as someone who wants to dabble in many different wargames is a huge plus) in the UK and Europe than you are in the US where the opposite is often true, and woe be it to anyone who suggests a different game store; I've actually seen people become hostile to the notion of going to/shopping at another game store, basically calling the person suggesting it a traitor and a terrible human being who is trying to "steal" business from the current game store.

 Bottle wrote:
This thread was like a blast from the past. Is it summer 2015 again? Did I dream the awesome 12 months where the community took Age of Sigmar and created loads of awesome fanmade systems, that then led to GW listening to the community and creating an official points system based on those fan-comps!?

That's part of my problem. We aren't going to see those systems anymore now that we have points. We aren't going to see people playing all those neat scenarios, or trying out new battalions - if it doesn't have points, it doesn't exist. And if it does exist, it sucks. And because it sucks, GW is slapping around its playerbase. The entirety of playing Age of Sigmar is now points and one (or maybe two) different scenarios. It took a broad and wonderful game and boiled it down to its most boring competitive aspects - and anyone who doesn't like it is a dirty casual who likes unbalanced games because they aren't good enough to compete with the elite competitive players. Oh, and now nobody has to actually try and communicate anymore because points allow you to automate social interaction to the point where you can avoid it completely. Your opponent may as well be a computer.

All the variety - gone. All the community - gone. All that's left is a deep mistrust of the honesty and ability of our fellow players. Yay?

All I want to add is: Playing AoS with points from the GHB is really fun. So much fun. And GW are now taking an awesome approach with everything from community relations to an ongoing commitment to make AoS a fun tournament game. Warlords looked like it was a rip roaring success and I can't wait to see what comes next. In the mean time I am going to be having fun playing pointed games of AoS whenever I get the chance.

Points are... okay. I mean, they aren't perfect, but for what they are trying to do, they are fine. I would have no problem playing an AoS game with points occasionally. I just find them limited in many ways, and find the attitude surrounding them to be oppressive and destructive. But if people would just use more than one scenario, they wouldn't be able to overly optimize their lists, and points would more accurately reflect actual balance.

 Mangod wrote:

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.

I wouldn't. With respect, it gets frustrating to repeatedly see this stuff, when as far as I'm concerned, and as far as my experiences go, it's pretty obvious and straight forward to sort out. People insisting on playing a game mode that isn't fit for purpose, and hand waving away their own sense of responsibility and are being wilfully blind to the simple idea that yes, there are things you can do about it - it's not necessarily Waac tfg, but its an unhealthy dogma to adhere do unquestioningly - elsewhere I compared it to blind faith in an angry God, that cannot be questioned, reasoned with, and no alternative views are permitted.

To be fair, more than once I have personally felt that people aren't even making the attempt. and too often, I see people dismiss out of hand even the idea of using social skills and 'social shock absorbers' like the idea of talking to people, being accommodating and so on in order to bridge any gaps or solve any issues, as if that somehow lessens the experience - I disagree. Heck, I had it earlier on where because I described how we made it work amongst our group I was told 'it wasn't necessary useful' to the discussion. People would rather complain than embrace, or consider a potential solution that requires thinking a bit outside of the box people have conditioned themselves to define as 'the one true way, from which we must never deviate'. Too often, people would rather just complain, blame gw, not do anything and continue to play a clunky game in a way that isn't fit for purpose. That's on them, as far as I'm concerned. I think those social skills should be applied anyway, because I believe in investing time with the people in my community. So for me, using social skills as a bridge just seems kind of obvious.

The simple fact of the matter is gw games (with exceptions -epic is great, and lotr is quite brilliant set of rules and is quite under appreciated and n my view) are generally clunky and unwieldy. Twenty or thirty year old game mechanisms that haven't seen any real 'evolution' in form. Gw won't change. Gw won't turn around and make the fixes people demand. Ok, fair enough. (IMO They should, at the very least make a more elegant set of rules, even if they never address the balance). That's the reality on the ground. That's what needs dealt with, and outside of wish listing, talking about the things gw should do but won't don't really have any real time practical or pragmatic benefit. Until they do, (if they ever do), you have the choices of playing clunky games in the manner people insist on, which is frequently unfit for purpose, which has all the value of banging your head against the wall (I would not recommend), walk away and invest/buy into a new game (which i recommend - there are no end of awesome games out there, like WMH, infinity etc) which has the downside of the 'investment cost' - new models which need to be bought, paid for, painted etc, new rules to learn, to lore to get into, actual game time to get to grips with said new rules etc, and while undeniably fun, this will cost you a significant amount of time/money/effort. The third option is to change how you approach your games (again, the argument that gw should change its games to suit the players can just as easily be turned on its head when you think about it: it's just as true to suggest gamers should change how they approach their games to suit the games they play. In other words, if the mountain won't come to you, you need to go to the mountain). I would recommend this approach, and unlike option 2 (which I heartily recommend), it doesn't really come with an 'investment cost' - I mean, you have your models, rules, you know the lore etc. All it costs you is a chat, a discussion, a bit of emotional maturity, maybe some accommodation for the other guy. No 'hard' costs. In terms of swallowing ones pride, it's not really thst high on the scale. Sure it's a change, but if you ask me, it's worth it, and it does open up a lot more options in the game than the 'resort to power build' default setting that has been enshrined in the 40k pug culture.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
This thread was like a blast from the past. Is it summer 2015 again? Did I dream the awesome 12 months where the community took Age of Sigmar and created loads of awesome fanmade systems, that then led to GW listening to the community and creating an official points system based on those fan-comps!?

That's part of my problem. We aren't going to see those systems anymore now that we have points. We aren't going to see people playing all those neat scenarios, or trying out new battalions - if it doesn't have points, it doesn't exist. And if it does exist, it sucks. And because it sucks, GW is slapping around its playerbase. The entirety of playing Age of Sigmar is now points and one (or maybe two) different scenarios. It took a broad and wonderful game and boiled it down to its most boring competitive aspects - and anyone who doesn't like it is a dirty casual who likes unbalanced games because they aren't good enough to compete with the elite competitive players. Oh, and now nobody has to actually try and communicate anymore because points allow you to automate social interaction to the point where you can avoid it completely. Your opponent may as well be a computer.

All the variety - gone. All the community - gone. All that's left is a deep mistrust of the honesty and ability of our fellow players. Yay?

All I want to add is: Playing AoS with points from the GHB is really fun. So much fun. And GW are now taking an awesome approach with everything from community relations to an ongoing commitment to make AoS a fun tournament game. Warlords looked like it was a rip roaring success and I can't wait to see what comes next. In the mean time I am going to be having fun playing pointed games of AoS whenever I get the chance.

Points are... okay. I mean, they aren't perfect, but for what they are trying to do, they are fine. I would have no problem playing an AoS game with points occasionally. I just find them limited in many ways, and find the attitude surrounding them to be oppressive and destructive. But if people would just use more than one scenario, they wouldn't be able to overly optimize their lists, and points would more accurately reflect actual balance.

This is an issue I have too. If a battalion doesn't have points in the GHB, sorry buddy can't play it, we don't know if it's unbalanced or not but it's not "official" so can't do it. Nobody will play any of the scenarios in books because they aren't "balanced", it'll be Pitched Battle scenarios all day every day. And that's the biggest problem. You basically throw away a huge chunk of the game that in many cases might as well not exist now because the "Matched Play" crowd will refuse to touch it if it doesn't fall under their banner. Basically the game just went from having a multitude of scenarios, with more being added in every campaign book and Battletome, to 6 (i.e. the ones listed in Matched Play). Gone is my ability to whip up a quick narrative where my Ghouls are going to spring out on an unsuspecting army using that one scenario in the FEC book, it's just one of the 6 matched play scenarios and that's it, and everything else may as well be nonexistent because it's an uphill battle to get someone to play it if it's not part of Matched Play. All the multitude of other comp-like systems, some likely better than the GHB's version, are now obsolete.

That's bad for everybody, and it's only a result of the "must have points" crowd refusing to even think outside the box. How many battalions are now invalidated because they don't have points associated? Any of the "boxed armies" like the Pestilens one or the Flesh Eater one has a battalion with it that's now not worth the paper it's printed on because nobody is going to let you play it because "it doesn't have points!". Summoning, broken as it might be with a powergaming munchkin type, is gutted when you have to spend points on something that may or may not even show up; Death got hit pretty damn hard by that, hell my Flesh Eater Courts, I don't have a Command Ability anymore because all of the Ghoul King's ones are "summon a new unit" but can't do that unless I set aside points to do it, because hey Matched Play. Could it be abused? Sure, but the answer wasn't to just make it almost not exist.

That's the problem. It's not "points are bad" it's that points, once introduced, quickly become the "default" standard and anything that doesn't conform becomes the exception and not the rule, when Matched Play should be the exception and not the rule. It's great to have some structure for leagues or tournament play, nobody is denying that, but it doesn't have to become "the" way to play and the problem is that, by and large, it HAS become the de facto way to play games, at the cost of cutting out huge swathes of the game for another bland approach that has no soul to it.

Maybe you guys were in communities with rich narrative campaigns running that have now devolved into nothing but Matched Play, but that's certainly not my experience.

My experience:

The tournament scene is the same - before people where using clash, then SCGT, now the GHB. It's all the same really.

PUG scene has vastly improved. Before people weren't using any scenario and were instead playing kill-games with no balance. Now there's a point structure and 6 scenarios to play with.

I used to have to push to even get a game of the ritual before. But now I always get an engaging scenario to play (and once I tire of the standard 6, I'll just start putting points on the narrative scenarios).

In my opinion narrative gaming isn't fun in a PUG environment. Narrative gaming is something I want to put lots of work into, creating characters and maps and stories to play games for. That's not going to happen in any satisfying manner in 5 minutes before a game, especially when people really just want to get on with it and play.

A narrative campaign for me is the pinnacle of gaming. But it's something you set up with close friends and put a lot of planning into and so it's not what I go to PUG nights expecting.

Of course Matched Play was going to become the de facto way to play because the structure is already there for players to get into a game in 5 mins. But in my experience it didn't replace narrative play, instead it replaced the unstructured mess that AoS PUGs used to be.

WayneTheGame wrote:


That's the problem. It's not "points are bad" it's that points, once introduced, quickly become the "default" standard and anything that doesn't conform becomes the exception and not the rule, when Matched Play should be the exception and not the rule. It's great to have some structure for leagues or tournament play, nobody is denying that, but it doesn't have to become "the" way to play and the problem is that, by and large, it HAS become the de facto way to play games, at the cost of cutting out huge swathes of the game for another bland approach that has no soul to it.

So, in this case, what happened to the approach of "just talk with people to get a different kind of game"? I ask that not to be sarcastic, but points don't remove that option. I think rather it highlights the issues with that approach and why GW's games really aren't all that great at supporting any particular kind of play the way they are written. Having to rely on social negotiation to get the kind of games you want has all sorts of pitfalls.

Likewise, for units not covered by the GHB, that would appear to be an issue on GW's end of not properly supporting their product line.

 Vaktathi wrote:
[
So, in this case, what happened to the approach of "just talk with people to get a different kind of game"? I ask that not to be sarcastic, but points don't remove that option. I

It kind of does though - that's the point. The second you have points based games with 'official scenarios', gamers will not step outside of the box. This becomes the default, the orthodoxy, the unquestioned dogma, the proper way to play, and anything else is heresy.

there are no ends of anecdotes on dakka of people who can't get narrative games because point based games imposed a forced orthodoxy on the community, regardless of how fit-for-purpose that orthodoxy is.

 Vaktathi wrote:
[
I think rather it highlights the issues with that approach and why GW's games really aren't all that great at supporting any particular kind of play the way they are written.

Games are just resolution mechanisms, regardless of how clunky or amazing they are. Gw rules are clunky and unwieldy, but there is nothing that says you must approach the game this way, and this way only. Gamers and their attitudes that they take to their games are just as responsible for supporting, or not supporting any particular style of play.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Having to rely on social negotiation to get the kind of games you want has all sorts of pitfalls.

Of course! I'd be the first to say it's not a magic pill. It's not guaranteed to work first time, brilliantly, or every time (and that can be said about every thing in our hobby!) But with the right attitude from all participants, it goes a long way towards adding a lot of value and variety to your games, and gives 'ownership' back to the players themselves.

And for what it's worth, while social negotiation has all sorts of pitfalls, as you correctly point out, it's short sighted to only pick out social negotiation as an issue - blind pick up games also have all sorts of pitfalls, as do every other game mode in table top gaming. It's not necessarily the 'social negotiation' thst is the problem - Unfortunately, the medium we choose is quite limited and can only be pushed so far. Whatever way you choose will in all likelihood have a whole bunch of hurdles you will need to jump, and hazards you will need to negotiate.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
This thread was like a blast from the past. Is it summer 2015 again? Did I dream the awesome 12 months where the community took Age of Sigmar and created loads of awesome fanmade systems, that then led to GW listening to the community and creating an official points system based on those fan-comps!?

That's part of my problem. We aren't going to see those systems anymore now that we have points. We aren't going to see people playing all those neat scenarios, or trying out new battalions - if it doesn't have points, it doesn't exist. And if it does exist, it sucks. And because it sucks, GW is slapping around its playerbase. The entirety of playing Age of Sigmar is now points and one (or maybe two) different scenarios. It took a broad and wonderful game and boiled it down to its most boring competitive aspects - and anyone who doesn't like it is a dirty casual who likes unbalanced games because they aren't good enough to compete with the elite competitive players. Oh, and now nobody has to actually try and communicate anymore because points allow you to automate social interaction to the point where you can avoid it completely. Your opponent may as well be a computer.

All the variety - gone. All the community - gone. All that's left is a deep mistrust of the honesty and ability of our fellow players. Yay?

All I want to add is: Playing AoS with points from the GHB is really fun. So much fun. And GW are now taking an awesome approach with everything from community relations to an ongoing commitment to make AoS a fun tournament game. Warlords looked like it was a rip roaring success and I can't wait to see what comes next. In the mean time I am going to be having fun playing pointed games of AoS whenever I get the chance.

Points are... okay. I mean, they aren't perfect, but for what they are trying to do, they are fine. I would have no problem playing an AoS game with points occasionally. I just find them limited in many ways, and find the attitude surrounding them to be oppressive and destructive. But if people would just use more than one scenario, they wouldn't be able to overly optimize their lists, and points would more accurately reflect actual balance.

I can only speak for my experience playing, watching and interacting with players who do the same, but while points are one option and if I were to go to an event with 50-100 people I expect points would just be easier (though it was more successful imo with player made comp) but I've played and still do play AoS in what I would call competitive (so, to win a prize or placing, but let's not resurrect that) and it does just fine. What's to stop someone from doing [insert absurd example]? Well, having the models and finding a player to continue to play you once that nonsense is revealed.

We're making it a point to play all 3 types from GHB, having done an open play event again yesterday and also next weekend. The whole issue of saying a game is bad or good is just opinion and I won't convince anyone on a forum, nor will they change my enjoyment (though some do spend an odd amount of time on AoS boards when they clearly hate the game and it causes the opposite of enjoyment ).

@Bottle you're right, it does reek of last summer but if you look anywhere else but here, it's just fine. To those who want to play a game or change something about it, just try. Try really hard if you want to play it, or travel to an event that's close by. No one is telling you that you should play a game or invest in a game you don't like. Rather, I think you absolutely should not. Just move on to something you like and enjoy your hobby. It makes it so much more enjoyable for everyone.

 VeteranNoob wrote:

@Bottle you're right, it does reek of last summer but if you look anywhere else but here, it's just fine. To those who want to play a game or change something about it, just try. Try really hard if you want to play it, or travel to an event that's close by. No one is telling you that you should play a game or invest in a game you don't like. Rather, I think you absolutely should not. Just move on to something you like and enjoy your hobby. It makes it so much more enjoyable for everyone.

Gotta agree with that! With events like Realms at War in the UK and Holy Hammer in the US there are also big narrative play events being run in the communities. Even if you don't live close by or can't make it, both show it can be done. So if you want to play narrative play all it takes is a bit of work but players are willing.

I would like to go to a narrative event in the future (I really wanted to go to RAW but the trip is too expensive sadly). In the meantime I am having a great time with the GHB.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I have zero problem with using points, I just wish people weren't so narrow-minded and inflexible that they refuse to actually talk about something first and instead need to fit it into the existing mindset, but again that's "pickup game culture" in the US. No real community just a bunch of "customers" who go to a specific store and all happen to play the same game. So what you have is instead of a community coming together because there are 10 people who all regularly see each other (although maybe not play against each other) at a game shop, and thus deciding hey maybe we should form a gaming club and expand out because all of us play the game, it stays as what is functionally like most people's relationships with their co-workers are. Again I mostly speak to experience but I see too much of what is basically a "turf" around a particular store, with rivalries forming between stores and animosity growing at people who tend to frequent this store instead of that store, when what I should be seeing is a community and a club forming that goes to all of the stores in the area, without being tied down to any particular one, or even needing a game store at all to form around.

This is generalizing way too much. For example, the X-Wing community where I play exists almost entirely at stores and yet people are more than just anonymous opponents. We talk outside of game nights, we go out for social time after the store closes, etc. The only difference between this and your idea of a great game club is that we don't have to pay rent for space outside of a store. Oh, and because X-Wing has a working point system, we don't need to do any pre-game negotiation. We just show up, put models on the table, and play games. And we can chat about other stuff while setting up instead of negotiating over how many ships we should be allowed to bring.

WayneTheGame wrote:
How many battalions are now invalidated because they don't have points associated? Any of the "boxed armies" like the Pestilens one or the Flesh Eater one has a battalion with it that's now not worth the paper it's printed on because nobody is going to let you play it because "it doesn't have points!". Summoning, broken as it might be with a powergaming munchkin type, is gutted when you have to spend points on something that may or may not even show up; Death got hit pretty damn hard by that, hell my Flesh Eater Courts, I don't have a Command Ability anymore because all of the Ghoul King's ones are "summon a new unit" but can't do that unless I set aside points to do it, because hey Matched Play. Could it be abused? Sure, but the answer wasn't to just make it almost not exist.

The problem here is not the existence of points, it's that GW made a mediocre attempt at adding a point system. The solution is a better point system (whether from GW or a third-party system), not removing points.

It's not "points are bad" it's that points, once introduced, quickly become the "default" standard and anything that doesn't conform becomes the exception and not the rule, when Matched Play should be the exception and not the rule.

That's because points are vastly superior to any alternative, even in the most casual narrative game. Points should be the default.

The problem is not points, it's that points become the "ONLY" way to play, so the game loses out on a ton of other things. As already stated, there are battalions and scenarios that will never see the light of day because they don't have points associated. Whether or not GW did a mediocre attempt at adding a point system, the fact remains that it's out and has become "the" way to play, with no deviation because people no longer want to use some alternative point system they found online or whatnot, it's GHB or bust because it came from GW, hence it's "official". I saw the same stuff in D&D years ago; there were a ton of third-party books that could have added a great number of things, but it wasn't from WOTC so nobody wanted to touch it, citing the same kind of "But how do we know it's balanced!" kind of thing, when it's not like half the crap WOTC was putting out for 3.5 was balanced either, or good, but again it carries the seal of approval so it has to be what gets used.

I don't even hate the points in the GHB. I do find that it curtails my Flesh Eater Courts due to the summoning (it basically means my Ghoul King does not get a Command Ability at all) but other than that I find it adequate EXCEPT for the fact that people don't want to think of anything to add to it. People are too caught up in the idea that points magically balance things that they're unwilling to deviate from that.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The problem is not points, it's that points become the "ONLY" way to play, so the game loses out on a ton of other things.

No, the game loses nothing. Anything that can be done with a no-points system can be done just fine with points.

As already stated, there are battalions and scenarios that will never see the light of day because they don't have points associated.

This is a problem with having an incomplete point system, not point systems in general. The solution is to add points to the missing units, not to play without points. Arguing otherwise is like pointing out that the painters missed a spot in your new house, so you should burn the whole thing down and go live in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere.

I saw the same stuff in D&D years ago; there were a ton of third-party books that could have added a great number of things, but it wasn't from WOTC so nobody wanted to touch it, citing the same kind of "But how do we know it's balanced!" kind of thing, when it's not like half the crap WOTC was putting out for 3.5 was balanced either, or good, but again it carries the seal of approval so it has to be what gets used.

On the other hand, my experience of D&D in that era most of the "I can't use this" complaints were from people who found some broken combo and were mad that they couldn't exploit it. I don't think I ever saw a character concept that couldn't be represented by the WOTC material, especially once the various supplements were updated. So no, I don't have much sympathy for the people who couldn't use overpowered unofficial stuff.

Also, note that D&D's biggest competition came from a third-party version that people embraced because it was good.

WayneTheGame wrote:
The problem is not points, it's that points become the "ONLY" way to play, so the game loses out on a ton of other things. As already stated, there are battalions and scenarios that will never see the light of day because they don't have points associated. Whether or not GW did a mediocre attempt at adding a point system, the fact remains that it's out and has become "the" way to play, with no deviation because people no longer want to use some alternative point system they found online or whatnot, it's GHB or bust because it came from GW, hence it's "official". I saw the same stuff in D&D years ago; there were a ton of third-party books that could have added a great number of things, but it wasn't from WOTC so nobody wanted to touch it, citing the same kind of "But how do we know it's balanced!" kind of thing, when it's not like half the crap WOTC was putting out for 3.5 was balanced either, or good, but again it carries the seal of approval so it has to be what gets used.

I don't even hate the points in the GHB. I do find that it curtails my Flesh Eater Courts due to the summoning (it basically means my Ghoul King does not get a Command Ability at all) but other than that I find it adequate EXCEPT for the fact that people don't want to think of anything to add to it. People are too caught up in the idea that points magically balance things that they're unwilling to deviate from that.

This is not sarcastic: @WtG I'm truly sorry you're running into these gaming groups. When we add formations from RGW or legacy or anything not in current GHB and are running Matched Play (my least fav of the three) we just agree on a price, usually we cost it too high, but oh well. If you can get a game of open or narrative play it's an excellent opportunity to try this stuff out.
Hope your gaming experiences gets better.

 VeteranNoob wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
The problem is not points, it's that points become the "ONLY" way to play, so the game loses out on a ton of other things. As already stated, there are battalions and scenarios that will never see the light of day because they don't have points associated. Whether or not GW did a mediocre attempt at adding a point system, the fact remains that it's out and has become "the" way to play, with no deviation because people no longer want to use some alternative point system they found online or whatnot, it's GHB or bust because it came from GW, hence it's "official". I saw the same stuff in D&D years ago; there were a ton of third-party books that could have added a great number of things, but it wasn't from WOTC so nobody wanted to touch it, citing the same kind of "But how do we know it's balanced!" kind of thing, when it's not like half the crap WOTC was putting out for 3.5 was balanced either, or good, but again it carries the seal of approval so it has to be what gets used.

I don't even hate the points in the GHB. I do find that it curtails my Flesh Eater Courts due to the summoning (it basically means my Ghoul King does not get a Command Ability at all) but other than that I find it adequate EXCEPT for the fact that people don't want to think of anything to add to it. People are too caught up in the idea that points magically balance things that they're unwilling to deviate from that.

This is not sarcastic: @WtG I'm truly sorry you're running into these gaming groups. When we add formations from RGW or legacy or anything not in current GHB and are running Matched Play (my least fav of the three) we just agree on a price, usually we cost it too high, but oh well. If you can get a game of open or narrative play it's an excellent opportunity to try this stuff out.
Hope your gaming experiences gets better.

It's just how games are in Tampa. AOS is fairly unpopular here, at least one store actively pushes against it because they have a bunch of KoW players, it's mostly 40k (tends to be 100% pickup game/semi-competitive play) and then like Warmachine and X-Wing. The idea of playing without points is an anathema to people.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 VeteranNoob wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
The problem is not points, it's that points become the "ONLY" way to play, so the game loses out on a ton of other things. As already stated, there are battalions and scenarios that will never see the light of day because they don't have points associated. Whether or not GW did a mediocre attempt at adding a point system, the fact remains that it's out and has become "the" way to play, with no deviation because people no longer want to use some alternative point system they found online or whatnot, it's GHB or bust because it came from GW, hence it's "official". I saw the same stuff in D&D years ago; there were a ton of third-party books that could have added a gr eat number of things, but it wasn't from WOTC so nobody wanted to touch it, citing the same kind of "But how do we know it's balanced!" kind of thing, when it's not like half the crap WOTC was putting out for 3.5 was balanced either, or good, but again it carries the seal of approval so it has to be what gets used.

I don't even hate the points in the GHB. I do find that it curtails my Flesh Eater Courts due to the summoning (it basically means my Ghoul King does not get a Command Ability at all) but other than that I find it adequate EXCEPT for the fact that people don't want to think of anything to add to it. People are too caught up in the idea that points magically balance things that they're unwilling to deviate from that.

This is not sarcastic: @WtG I'm truly sorry you're running into these gaming groups. When we add formations from RGW or legacy or anything not in current GHB and are running Matched Play (my least fav of the three) we just agree on a price, usually we cost it too high, but oh well. If you can get a game of open or narrative play it's an excellent opportunity to try this stuff out.
Hope your gaming experiences gets better.

It's just how games are in Tampa. AOS is fairly unpopular here, at least one store actively pushes against it because they have a bunch of KoW players, it's mostly 40k (tends to be 100% pickup game/semi-competitive play) and then like Warmachine and X-Wing. The idea of playing without points is an anathema to people.

Well, I used to do a worldwide LARP with many folks from Tampa and clearly they were all cheesy so I can see how that would bleed over j/k/ But that is a bummer.

2 things 1: Points are necessary for even open play in most cases. sure you can throw out the summoning restrictions, the rules of 3, battle roles and what have you and still have a good time if you and your opponent agree to it, but without points to give you a vague idea of how strong things are you're left doing 200 games of playtesting to figure out exactly how strong things are relative to each other and then 1 person will blame 'that broken unit' for losing everytime. Points are helpful for ballparking power levels and saving time.

2: Shut up about balance. Seriously shut up. Yes it's unbalanced and has lists and units that are clearly head and shoulders better than others but, because of how sigmar is designed, in general no list is truly unbeatable and everything can kill everything else. That's as good as balance gets in most games. 40k fails because you have units you need 2000 wounds on to kill a model. Sigmar is on the same level as Warmahordes (although they have better FACTION balance) and X-wing, you bring a trash x-point list to a tourney and you're gonna get your butt fed to you. Bring a tough x-point list and you have a shot if you play well. The game is not perfectly balanced and SHOULD NOT be perfectly balanced (although they can certainly get closer) Aos is fine, fun and brand new, hope for improvements sure but for god's sake if you're not having fun than you can definitely play something else until the GHB comes out next year.