Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/03 21:48:37
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Wayniac wrote:What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.
There is no limit on how much you can bring. If I spend $10,000 on models (and bring all of it every game) I have more stuff than you and I probably win every game. Obviously nobody would spend $10,000 on AoS instead of playing a better game, but on a smaller scale it gives a decisive advantage to players who can out-spend their opponents. The only way to have a "fair" game of no-points AoS is to implement third-party balancing systems (whether in the form of a pre-game negotiation or third-party points) and remove the "no points" part of the game.
And, again, the fact that it didn't happen because everyone looked at the rules and said "  this stupid  " while moving to Warmachine/ KoW/etc doesn't change the fact that the game is bad. A bad game doesn't cease to be bad just because nobody plays it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:I can say that, locally for me? That was not the case. Several of those people dumped money into armies(I sold my Death army to one of those people during the initial few weeks of AoS) before they basically drifted off as they tended to play at "a different level".
So your counter-argument to the idea of people quitting is that... people quit. Makes perfect sense to me.
Why would any store not want to promote a product they're stocking?
Because the store has no incentive to "stock" no-points AoS. The models can be used with better games ( KoW, third-party AoS variants with points, etc) and the rules aren't sold. Therefore the store makes just as much money if they say "here's a better way to use those models I'm selling you", except now the customer is playing a much better game and more likely to continue buying.
I saw a few people get effectively turned off from some of the local shops that did nothing but badmouth Age of Sigmar and try to push Warmachine/Kings of War(which is a joke) and instead head to a local GW during the launch week.
Ok, obviously you're never going to satisfy the hardcore GW fanboys if you do anything that isn't GW corporate dogma, but who cares about those people? I strongly suspect there's a lot more money to be made from the majority of people who don't enjoy no-points AoS than the GW loyalists, and the experience for a new customer is going to be a lot better if they're directed to a better game instead.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/03 21:55:30
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/03 22:05:15
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Peregrine wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:I can say that, locally for me? That was not the case. Several of those people dumped money into armies(I sold my Death army to one of those people during the initial few weeks of AoS) before they basically drifted off as they tended to play at "a different level".
So your counter-argument to the idea of people quitting is that... people quit. Makes perfect sense to me.
I'd suggest you actually read what I wrote. Drifting off from a community is not the same as them quitting.
Why would any store not want to promote a product they're stocking?
Because the store has no incentive to "stock" no-points AoS. The models can be used with better games ( KoW, third-party AoS variants with points, etc) and the rules aren't sold. Therefore the store makes just as much money if they say "here's a better way to use those models I'm selling you", except now the customer is playing a much better game and more likely to continue buying.
Or the customer is likely to just not buy anything because you tried to push them into something else.
Sure there's "no incentive to stock no-points AoS" as the rules aren't sold...but you know what? Big deal. You can sell them on the models instead.
I saw a few people get effectively turned off from some of the local shops that did nothing but badmouth Age of Sigmar and try to push Warmachine/Kings of War(which is a joke) and instead head to a local GW during the launch week.
Ok, obviously you're never going to satisfy the hardcore GW fanboys if you do anything that isn't GW corporate dogma, but who cares about those people? I strongly suspect there's a lot more money to be made from the majority of people who don't enjoy no-points AoS than the GW loyalists, and the experience for a new customer is going to be a lot better if they're directed to a better game instead.
The same can be said for the people "who don't enjoy no-points AoS" and wanted nothing more than 9th edition or whatever.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/03 23:49:32
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
UK
|
Wayniac wrote:What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.
Saw it most times my old group tried AoS, we'd try to balance it on wounds and other methods but it just didn't work and one army would stomp the other.
After that there's no interest in AoS even with ghb, instead we are going to try 9th age because total war rekindled our love of the old world.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 03:13:06
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
hobojebus wrote:Wayniac wrote:What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.
Saw it most times my old group tried AoS, we'd try to balance it on wounds and other methods but it just didn't work and one army would stomp the other.
After that there's no interest in AoS even with ghb, instead we are going to try 9th age because total war rekindled our love of the old world.
Putting it bluntly, balancing it on wounds was never really going to work...because people would do ridiculous things like claim it didn't count things you would summon or other things.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 04:34:01
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Kanluwen wrote:
Putting it bluntly, balancing it on wounds was never really going to work...because people would do ridiculous things like claim it didn't count things you would summon or other things.
It works in general. The problem is, you can't design your army around wounds. It's too easy to break. Instead, you have an army that you want to use filled with models you want to play with, and you can use wounds as a general power level. There are places where it breaks down (horde armies, for example), but in general, it will give you a rough estimate of the relative power of that army to another. If you have too many wounds, drop a figure or two from a unit. Too little, add a figure or two to a unit. The resulting game will be close enough that both players will feel like they are contributing to a game rather than one player watching as the other player has fun breaking all his toys. You can mod it (horde armies have half wounds) or add additional limitations (keywords, summoning) in order to help where wounds alone don't work so well.
But as an army building limitation, it doesn't work because the peripheral cases where it doesn't work are obvious and easy to pick up on. If your goal is to break it, you won't have a hard time of it. Points are the same. If your goal is to break it, you will. Or someone else will and post how to the internet. It is better to use points to balance an already created army rather than to use it as the sole basis of one.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 11:40:08
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets
|
Sqorgar wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
Putting it bluntly, balancing it on wounds was never really going to work...because people would do ridiculous things like claim it didn't count things you would summon or other things.
It works in general. The problem is, you can't design your army around wounds. It's too easy to break. Instead, you have an army that you want to use filled with models you want to play with, and you can use wounds as a general power level. There are places where it breaks down (horde armies, for example), but in general, it will give you a rough estimate of the relative power of that army to another. If you have too many wounds, drop a figure or two from a unit. Too little, add a figure or two to a unit. The resulting game will be close enough that both players will feel like they are contributing to a game rather than one player watching as the other player has fun breaking all his toys. You can mod it (horde armies have half wounds) or add additional limitations (keywords, summoning) in order to help where wounds alone don't work so well.
But as an army building limitation, it doesn't work because the peripheral cases where it doesn't work are obvious and easy to pick up on. If your goal is to break it, you won't have a hard time of it. Points are the same. If your goal is to break it, you will. Or someone else will and post how to the internet. It is better to use points to balance an already created army rather than to use it as the sole basis of one.
It also works awfully since it doesn't consider anything else, skavenslaves are certainly not going to compare up to anything else with the same amount but they still counted.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 11:40:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 12:54:38
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It also works awfully since it doesn't consider anything else, skavenslaves are certainly not going to compare up to anything else with the same amount but they still counted.
So you take that into account. Same with the likes of Ungors and Skinks.
We often use units like this to pad an army out - make it look bigger (and the game more impressive) without tipping the balance (no one is going to care if you put a unit of 20 Skinks on the table in your average-sized game...).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 13:03:00
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
Wayniac wrote:What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.
I realize that this is just an anecdote, but EVERY game of no points AoS I've ever played ended in a one-sided massacre. Short of knowing every unit in the game and playing a kajillion games, I'm not sure how you'd be able to balance things meaningfully on the fly. I want a game that's ready to play today. I don't want a game that's ready to play after a long process involving trial and error, negotiation and a potentially long series of unbalanced games before you start to see balance. MOST people don't want that... which is why AoS sold poorly at first, but has seen a comeback since the General's Handbook was released.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 13:30:13
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Kriswall wrote:Wayniac wrote:What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.
I realize that this is just an anecdote, but EVERY game of no points AoS I've ever played ended in a one-sided massacre. Short of knowing every unit in the game and playing a kajillion games, I'm not sure how you'd be able to balance things meaningfully on the fly. I want a game that's ready to play today. I don't want a game that's ready to play after a long process involving trial and error, negotiation and a potentially long series of unbalanced games before you start to see balance.
Sorry, how is that any different from points games?
If I play my IG or Raptors using Raven Guard detachment at 2k versus Eldar or Tau at 2k, it's no real meaningful contest. I can general the hell out of things...and still lose, despite "equal points".
Points need to be properly balanced in order to be meaningful. Otherwise? They're just a crutch for people to claim "My army is balanced!" without having to actually look at their army and how they play it versus other armies.
MOST people don't want that... which is why AoS sold poorly at first, but has seen a comeback since the General's Handbook was released.
Posts anecdote then posts that anecdote is clearly why AoS sold poorly at first...
Of course it could have nothing to do with the fact that for many people there was no interest in buying anything, right?
AoS had how many "new" armies and "new" units at launch? I didn't have to buy anything for my Wood Elves. I did, however, pick up some more Eternal Guard and Waywatchers. Hell, I bought four boxes worth of Fenrisian Wolves to run Orion and a swarm of Hunting Hounds to accompany my Wild Riders--something I never would have done in 8th.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 13:33:19
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 13:38:18
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
Kanluwen wrote: Kriswall wrote:Wayniac wrote:What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.
I realize that this is just an anecdote, but EVERY game of no points AoS I've ever played ended in a one-sided massacre. Short of knowing every unit in the game and playing a kajillion games, I'm not sure how you'd be able to balance things meaningfully on the fly. I want a game that's ready to play today. I don't want a game that's ready to play after a long process involving trial and error, negotiation and a potentially long series of unbalanced games before you start to see balance.
Sorry, how is that any different from points games?
If I play my IG or Raptors using Raven Guard detachment at 2k versus Eldar or Tau at 2k, it's no real meaningful contest. I can general the hell out of things...and still lose, despite "equal points".
Points need to be properly balanced in order to be meaningful. Otherwise? They're just a crutch for people to claim "My army is balanced!" without having to actually look at their army and how they play it versus other armies.
MOST people don't want that... which is why AoS sold poorly at first, but has seen a comeback since the General's Handbook was released.
Posts anecdote then posts that anecdote is clearly why AoS sold poorly at first...
Of course it could have nothing to do with the fact that for many people there was no interest in buying anything, right?
AoS had how many "new" armies and "new" units at launch? I didn't have to buy anything for my Wood Elves. I did, however, pick up some more Eternal Guard and Waywatchers. Hell, I bought four boxes worth of Fenrisian Wolves to run Orion and a swarm of Hunting Hounds to accompany my Wild Riders--something I never would have done in 8th.
We know anecdotally that sales of Fantasy models spiked briefly when AoS was originally released and then very quickly died off. The general understanding that I've seen over and over is that people gave it a shot, bought Stormcast and Khorne Bloodbound, bought new units for existing models and then quickly found the game unplayable... resulting in the drop off of sales. Sales picked up again once the General's Handbook was released.
My anecdote supports the post release drop in sales and interest. The game were all one sided massacres. The game felt unplayable out of the box. Hence, we chose not to continue playing it. It was very disappointing.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 13:44:12
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
Sweden
|
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Sqorgar wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
Putting it bluntly, balancing it on wounds was never really going to work...because people would do ridiculous things like claim it didn't count things you would summon or other things.
It works in general. The problem is, you can't design your army around wounds. It's too easy to break. Instead, you have an army that you want to use filled with models you want to play with, and you can use wounds as a general power level. There are places where it breaks down (horde armies, for example), but in general, it will give you a rough estimate of the relative power of that army to another. If you have too many wounds, drop a figure or two from a unit. Too little, add a figure or two to a unit. The resulting game will be close enough that both players will feel like they are contributing to a game rather than one player watching as the other player has fun breaking all his toys. You can mod it (horde armies have half wounds) or add additional limitations (keywords, summoning) in order to help where wounds alone don't work so well.
But as an army building limitation, it doesn't work because the peripheral cases where it doesn't work are obvious and easy to pick up on. If your goal is to break it, you won't have a hard time of it. Points are the same. If your goal is to break it, you will. Or someone else will and post how to the internet. It is better to use points to balance an already created army rather than to use it as the sole basis of one.
It also works awfully since it doesn't consider anything else, skavenslaves are certainly not going to compare up to anything else with the same amount but they still counted.
Yeah, just using Wounds is terribly inexact, since it suggests that a Skavenslave and an Ironbreaker, for example, are equal.
And even then, tarpit units like Skavenslaves or Goblins aren't all created equal. And once you have to start adding more metrics to judge a unit by... at that stage, isn't it just easier to use points?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 13:51:03
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
I second the notion that points are useless unless they provide a meaningful balance mechanism. Non balanced points are to me the same as no points in that the end result can often be two forces that are no where near balanced to begin with.
I'm finding GHB points to be "ok" at best. The balance can be a lot tighter.
Points that provide actual balance are great IMO. GHB points are not really there right now though, but GW points have never really been there since as long as I can remember.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 13:54:49
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 13:53:39
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Kriswall wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Kriswall wrote:Wayniac wrote:What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.
I realize that this is just an anecdote, but EVERY game of no points AoS I've ever played ended in a one-sided massacre. Short of knowing every unit in the game and playing a kajillion games, I'm not sure how you'd be able to balance things meaningfully on the fly. I want a game that's ready to play today. I don't want a game that's ready to play after a long process involving trial and error, negotiation and a potentially long series of unbalanced games before you start to see balance.
Sorry, how is that any different from points games?
If I play my IG or Raptors using Raven Guard detachment at 2k versus Eldar or Tau at 2k, it's no real meaningful contest. I can general the hell out of things...and still lose, despite "equal points".
Points need to be properly balanced in order to be meaningful. Otherwise? They're just a crutch for people to claim "My army is balanced!" without having to actually look at their army and how they play it versus other armies.
MOST people don't want that... which is why AoS sold poorly at first, but has seen a comeback since the General's Handbook was released.
Posts anecdote then posts that anecdote is clearly why AoS sold poorly at first...
Of course it could have nothing to do with the fact that for many people there was no interest in buying anything, right?
AoS had how many "new" armies and "new" units at launch? I didn't have to buy anything for my Wood Elves. I did, however, pick up some more Eternal Guard and Waywatchers. Hell, I bought four boxes worth of Fenrisian Wolves to run Orion and a swarm of Hunting Hounds to accompany my Wild Riders--something I never would have done in 8th.
We know anecdotally that sales of Fantasy models spiked briefly when AoS was originally released and then very quickly died off. The general understanding that I've seen over and over is that people gave it a shot, bought Stormcast and Khorne Bloodbound, bought new units for existing models and then quickly found the game unplayable... resulting in the drop off of sales. Sales picked up again once the General's Handbook was released.
My anecdote supports the post release drop in sales and interest. The game were all one sided massacres. The game felt unplayable out of the box. Hence, we chose not to continue playing it. It was very disappointing.
You can claim that your anecdote supports what you want to think it supports, it does not necessarily actually support it.
Sales spiking when AoS was originally released could have nothing to do with "people giving it a shot" but everything to do with the panic buying that went on with AoS' launch because of shoddy sites like BoLS claiming whole ranges were going to be discontinued with no warning at all(which was demonstrably false, we got the "Last Chance to Buy" added in to try to deal with that crap). Sales slowing down could have nothing to do with people quitting the game but rather figuring out they don't need to have huge numbers of models like they used to.
Sales picking up once the General's Handbook was released could have absolutely nothing to do with people wanting to play points, but instead with people having to buy things they did not have in large numbers before since "points made them better" than the choices they did have.
Your anecdote is just that; an anecdote that you have attempted to fit with facts that exist(a sales spike when AoS was released which leveled out and then a sales spike with the release of General's Handbook). Your experience was not the same as mine. We did not have many "one sided massacres" in my local community, outside of the people who felt that they had to prove to everyone else that AoS was "broken" by taking ridiculous combination lists or just not understanding the rules(i.e. Fateweaver and the Screaming Bell argument that went on regarding the 13 result or people taking Summoners and not taking the units they want to summon).
Once they got put in their place, they either went away because of personality conflicts(those individuals also tended to get pretty salty when proven wrong) or because they found out there were people playing 9th Age elsewhere.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:03:37
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
auticus wrote:I second the notion that points are useless unless they provide a meaningful balance mechanism.
I'm finding GHB points to be "ok" at best. The balance can be a lot tighter.
Points that provide actual balance are great IMO. GHB points are not really there right now though, but GW points have never really been there since as long as I can remember.
How can you say that the GHB points system doesn't provide a meaningful balance mechanism? There are some units that probably need to have their points shifted a little. The majority of units have reasonable points costs. You can take 100 pairs of randomized players, have them build lists out of the GHB, have them play one of the six matched play missions and the majority of the games will be fairly well matched. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good... FAR better than no points at all. Trusting in your opponent's sportsmanship level (the base AoS balancing mechanism) is just far too unreliable for many, many people.
There will ALWAYS be a 'tournament meta' wherein some builds are stronger than others. There will ALWAYS be a 'tournament meta' wherein some units are stronger than others. I can't think of a single competitive game (i.e. one winner and one loser per game) where the players get to pick their armies (lists, card decks, game pieces, etc) where there ISN'T some sort of meta saying certain choices are better than others. The meta will normally shift as new releases come out.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:07:06
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Nasty Nob
Crescent City Fl..
|
I don't get the sales thing at all. I bought a brand new AoS army for AoS. I'm still painting it. why would I buy more and more models for a game I have yet to play. My friends play they seem to be having a really good time, the club has something like 20 players on their challenge board. The board is so packed you can't get on the board until you've won a game against some one on the board!
|
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:10:18
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
Kanluwen wrote:We did not have many "one sided massacres" in my local community, outside of the people who felt that they had to prove to everyone else that AoS was "broken" by taking ridiculous combination lists or just not understanding the rules(i.e. Fateweaver and the Screaming Bell argument that went on regarding the 13 result or people taking Summoners and not taking the units they want to summon).
Once they got put in their place, they either went away because of personality conflicts(those individuals also tended to get pretty salty when proven wrong) or because they found out there were people playing 9th Age elsewhere.
First of all, you don't need to have a unit already in your list (or on the table) to be able to summon another copy. Sounds like you don't know the rules. But whatever. Pot, kettle.
Also sounds like you got lucky to not see many one sided massacres. That's uncommon for a community giving AoS a chance. I'm assuming it's related to your self admitted community policy of 'putting people in their place' when they don't conform and then seeing them driven away. Not gonna lie. Your community sounds awful. I'm not sure I'd want to be part of a group that can't accommodate a variety of players and actively ostracizes people who want to play a certain way.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:24:31
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM
|
Last time Kan was here he was boasting of a one-sided massacre he pulled on another player to "teach him a lesson", so interesting to see how he has changed his tune lol.
|
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:33:24
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
Bottle wrote:Last time Kan was here he was boasting of a one-sided massacre he pulled on another player to "teach him a lesson", so interesting to see how he has changed his tune lol.
I can only assume that's how his community 'puts people in their place'. Sounds like a fun crew.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:35:01
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Kriswall wrote: Kanluwen wrote:We did not have many "one sided massacres" in my local community, outside of the people who felt that they had to prove to everyone else that AoS was "broken" by taking ridiculous combination lists or just not understanding the rules(i.e. Fateweaver and the Screaming Bell argument that went on regarding the 13 result or people taking Summoners and not taking the units they want to summon).
Once they got put in their place, they either went away because of personality conflicts(those individuals also tended to get pretty salty when proven wrong) or because they found out there were people playing 9th Age elsewhere.
First of all, you don't need to have a unit already in your list (or on the table) to be able to summon another copy.
If we're going to get nitpicky, your argument here supports exactly what I said. You should have stated "you don't need to have a unit already in your list (or on the table) to be able to summon a copy."
Sounds like you don't know the rules. But whatever. Pot, kettle.
In order for you to know the spell, you need to have taken the warscroll. For Regiments of Renown, we had a caveat in place that for you to be able to Summon a unit you simply had to have the Warscroll as part of your chosen Warscroll listings.
Summoning requires a Wizard to know the spell. How does a Wizard know the summoning spell? A Wizard knows the spell based on you having the unit.
Did the GHB or an FAQ change that? Because if so, cool for that--otherwise it was locally regarded as having you to require the Warscroll present in your army, since that was what 'unlocked' it until we started doing the RoR stuff.
Also sounds like you got lucky to not see many one sided massacres. That's uncommon for a community giving AoS a chance. I'm assuming it's related to your self admitted community policy of 'putting people in their place' when they don't conform and then seeing them driven away. Not gonna lie. Your community sounds awful. I'm not sure I'd want to be part of a group that can't accommodate a variety of players and actively ostracizes people who want to play a certain way.
There's a vast difference between someone wanting to play competitively and someone wanting to play a cheesefest game against new players exclusively.
There's a vast difference between someone wanting to play competitively and someone wanting to rules lawyer every single thing when the other player was just after a quick game.
Rules lawyering in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but continuing to argue the point when someone has already just agreed to compromise? That doesn't make you any friends.
The same thing goes for cheesefests; sometimes they're fun to do. But again not everyone wants to always just exclusively play cheesefests.
When 8th was a game that was fairly empty with few players? That was something else entirely. Those people were tolerated because, hey there wasn't much option.
When AoS hit and we had an infusion of new players?
Nope, they weren't tolerated as much. They knew people disliked playing against them but they continued in their behaviors.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:46:41
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Clousseau
|
Kriswall wrote: auticus wrote:I second the notion that points are useless unless they provide a meaningful balance mechanism.
I'm finding GHB points to be "ok" at best. The balance can be a lot tighter.
Points that provide actual balance are great IMO. GHB points are not really there right now though, but GW points have never really been there since as long as I can remember.
How can you say that the GHB points system doesn't provide a meaningful balance mechanism? There are some units that probably need to have their points shifted a little. The majority of units have reasonable points costs. You can take 100 pairs of randomized players, have them build lists out of the GHB, have them play one of the six matched play missions and the majority of the games will be fairly well matched. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good... FAR better than no points at all. Trusting in your opponent's sportsmanship level (the base AoS balancing mechanism) is just far too unreliable for many, many people.
There will ALWAYS be a 'tournament meta' wherein some builds are stronger than others. There will ALWAYS be a 'tournament meta' wherein some units are stronger than others. I can't think of a single competitive game (i.e. one winner and one loser per game) where the players get to pick their armies (lists, card decks, game pieces, etc) where there ISN'T some sort of meta saying certain choices are better than others. The meta will normally shift as new releases come out.
Because the GHB has obvious broken builds. The majority of models seem fine but are flat out eviscerated against the obvious broken builds. Fix the broken builds and make monsters not so heavily discounted, and I think the GHB would be one of the better systems GW has ever endorsed. Until then, it still requires negotiation on players' parts if they want a fun game if someone wants to bring one of those busted builds to a casual game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:47:17
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Brutal Black Orc
|
Peregrine wrote:Wayniac wrote:What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.
There is no limit on how much you can bring. If I spend $10,000 on models (and bring all of it every game) I have more stuff than you and I probably win every game. Obviously nobody would spend $10,000 on AoS instead of playing a better game, but on a smaller scale it gives a decisive advantage to players who can out-spend their opponents. The only way to have a "fair" game of no-points AoS is to implement third-party balancing systems (whether in the form of a pre-game negotiation or third-party points) and remove the "no points" part of the game.
And, again, the fact that it didn't happen because everyone looked at the rules and said "  this stupid  " while moving to Warmachine/ KoW/etc doesn't change the fact that the game is bad. A bad game doesn't cease to be bad just because nobody plays it.
Or maybe because no one is slowed enough to spend that much money and the unholy amount of resources, effort, and time you'd need to spend in order to transport it, as well as deploying it. No one would play with you because of your insistence of brining that oversized army and the fact the you'd need a whole evening just to fething deploy and list the stuff you're bring, be it AoS or a "better" game. But hey, the slope wasn't slippery enough.
That didn't happen because people, unlike you, had enough brains (or they weren't directed at being a sneering ashhat) to figure out 300 bucks would (for example) do nice for an army.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 15:24:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:49:56
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
Kanluwen wrote: Kriswall wrote: Kanluwen wrote:We did not have many "one sided massacres" in my local community, outside of the people who felt that they had to prove to everyone else that AoS was "broken" by taking ridiculous combination lists or just not understanding the rules(i.e. Fateweaver and the Screaming Bell argument that went on regarding the 13 result or people taking Summoners and not taking the units they want to summon).
Once they got put in their place, they either went away because of personality conflicts(those individuals also tended to get pretty salty when proven wrong) or because they found out there were people playing 9th Age elsewhere.
First of all, you don't need to have a unit already in your list (or on the table) to be able to summon another copy.
If we're going to get nitpicky, your argument here supports exactly what I said. You should have stated "you don't need to have a unit already in your list (or on the table) to be able to summon a copy."
Sounds like you don't know the rules. But whatever. Pot, kettle.
In order for you to know the spell, you need to have taken the warscroll. For Regiments of Renown, we had a caveat in place that for you to be able to Summon a unit you simply had to have the Warscroll as part of your chosen Warscroll listings.
Summoning requires a Wizard to know the spell. How does a Wizard know the summoning spell? A Wizard knows the spell based on you having the unit.
Did the GHB or an FAQ change that?
Yes. Maybe you should read the rules before putting people in their place and teaching them lessons about acceptable ways to play...
"Q: Can the summoning spells on some warscrolls be used by the
appropriate caster even if none of the models from the warscroll
are in my army?
A: Yes."
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:50:56
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Just decided to unquote Bottle. We had this argument before; I don't want to get into it here. Kriswall wrote: Yes. Maybe you should read the rules before putting people in their place and teaching them lessons about acceptable ways to play... "Q: Can the summoning spells on some warscrolls be used by the appropriate caster even if none of the models from the warscroll are in my army? A: Yes."
And what's the date on that, Kriswall? Because that FAQ wasn't up the first few weeks of AoS' lifespan bud. That was one of the more hotly contested issues until the official FAQ.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/04 15:06:34
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 14:54:29
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
Its the current FAQ. There are no 'old' FAQs for AoS.
|
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 15:03:02
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Ghaz wrote:Its the current FAQ. There are no 'old' FAQs for AoS.
My question was more along the lines as to when that specific ruling was initially posted. The FAQ just says updated June 2016 in the document and updated July 2016 on the directory page.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 15:13:54
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
Kanluwen wrote:Just decided to unquote Bottle. We had this argument before; I don't want to get into it here.
Kriswall wrote:
Yes. Maybe you should read the rules before putting people in their place and teaching them lessons about acceptable ways to play...
"Q: Can the summoning spells on some warscrolls be used by the
appropriate caster even if none of the models from the warscroll
are in my army?
A: Yes."
And what's the date on that, Kriswall?
Because that FAQ wasn't up the first few weeks of AoS' lifespan bud. That was one of the more hotly contested issues until the official FAQ.
Ok, so let me understand. You were wrong, yet decided to 'put people in their place', driving them away for taking a stand on a rule interpretation? Ok. Again, your community sounds awful.
Never understood why that was contested. It always seemed extremely straightforward. I never understood the argument and still don't. Of course, the FAQ shows I was right, so I don't really need to understand what was obviously an incorrect argument.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 15:22:39
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
Kanluwen wrote: Ghaz wrote:Its the current FAQ. There are no 'old' FAQs for AoS.
My question was more along the lines as to when that specific ruling was initially posted. The FAQ just says updated June 2016 in the document and updated July 2016 on the directory page.
That ruling first appeared HERE in the AoS Draft FAQ dated 21 April 2016. The drafts also contained the Grand Alliance FAQs so I would say the June date is correct, not July.
|
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 15:27:15
Subject: Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Kriswall wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Just decided to unquote Bottle. We had this argument before; I don't want to get into it here. Kriswall wrote: Yes. Maybe you should read the rules before putting people in their place and teaching them lessons about acceptable ways to play... "Q: Can the summoning spells on some warscrolls be used by the appropriate caster even if none of the models from the warscroll are in my army? A: Yes."
And what's the date on that, Kriswall? Because that FAQ wasn't up the first few weeks of AoS' lifespan bud. That was one of the more hotly contested issues until the official FAQ. Ok, so let me understand. You were wrong, yet decided to 'put people in their place', driving them away for taking a stand on a rule interpretation? Ok. Again, your community sounds awful. Never understood why that was contested. It always seemed extremely straightforward. I never understood the argument and still don't. Of course, the FAQ shows I was right, so I don't really need to understand what was obviously an incorrect argument.
Really? You don't understand why that was contested? Maybe because on the Warscrolls for a Wizard it did not list Summoning spells, nor did it say in the 4 page rules blurb? Ghaz wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Ghaz wrote:Its the current FAQ. There are no 'old' FAQs for AoS.
My question was more along the lines as to when that specific ruling was initially posted. The FAQ just says updated June 2016 in the document and updated July 2016 on the directory page.
That ruling first appeared HERE in the AoS Draft FAQ dated 21 April 2016. The drafts also contained the Grand Alliance FAQs so I would say the June date is correct, not July.
So either way, a lengthy time span after the launch of AoS.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/04 15:28:24
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 15:39:01
Subject: Re:Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Brutal Black Orc
|
Yeah, I'm going to go on a leg and call you are being sorely mistaken, kan, in both points you make.
It says explicidly on each unit's warscroll's: Death wizards know the spell raise grave guard (or any other, for that matter), aside any other spell they know. It was never stated you needed to field grave guard. Only by making mental gymnastics you could say that, not even resorting to rules lawyering could serve because the rules said they knew the spell all along.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 15:39:34
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/04 15:42:30
Subject: Re:Why were the points not included on release?
|
 |
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor
Gathering the Informations.
|
Lord Kragan wrote:Yeah, I'm going to go on a leg and call you are being sorely mistaken, kan, in both points you make. It says explicidly on each unit's warscroll's: Death wizards know the spell raise grave guard (or any other, for that matter), aside any other spell they know. It was never stated you needed to field grave guard. Only by making mental gymnastics you could say that, not even resorting to rules lawyering could serve because the rules said they knew the spell all along.
Thank you for making my point. It only states that on the unit's warscrolls. It could have been solved early on by saying something to the effect of "Death Wizards have the ability to Summon units from the Death faction. Consult the Warscrolls for Death faction units to see what units can be summoned." being present on the Wizards' warscrolls. Editor's note: The way I stated we played it? That was during the first few months of Age of Sigmar. Before we ever saw any FAQs or tournament stuff. The way we played it came after we had a certain group of players continuously taking combinations that people were posting online as "gamebreaking" for the express purpose of trying to drive new players out of the community.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/04 15:58:15
|
|
 |
 |
|