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.
2016/12/13 00:31:31
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
When I first heard about Age of Sigmar, I was skeptical. It had been some 15 years since I last played a Games Workshop game (circa 3rd edition 40k) and while I never had much of an attachment to the Warhammer Fantasy world, the fact it was just destroyed and replaced with something else was a little weird. After I gave it more thought and saw how streamlined (NOTE: This is not the same thing as "dumbed down" which is a common anti-AOS retort I've seen) it was, and the fact there were no points, I had a revelation: Finally, there was the style of game that I had long since wanted, being able to buy a force, and add things to it as you went along and just use them next game, without fiddling around with points to fit them in. The idea that I could decide after a game, you know I really want to add a unit of Retributors, and then just buy them and assemble them and next game just set them down with my force, was great. I had long lamented the concept that you needed an X point list to start playing, it's discouraging to new players who need to spend a large amount of money just to get started and to those starting new armies because you can't start small when everyone is playing 2,000 point games; my experience has been that if you aren't playing the same points everyone else is it's very hard to get a game in because people would rather play at their preferred points level than bring the points down to entertain a new/expanding player. In fact this very thing stopped me from getting back to Warhammer several years prior, because I didn't want to immediately start playing at 2,000 points or whatever the preferred points was just to start getting a game, and the impression I got was that people did not prefer to want to play at lower points.
As I read reviews, I saw more and more people slam the game for the "lack of balance", seemingly ignoring the fact that you were supposed to A) Not be a ****** and try to game the system and B) Have a chat with your opponent to decide what made sense. Still, I saw lots of posts laughing about how one could do something stupid like field 10 Nagashes or 16 cannons or other unrealistic things that never would happen, forgetting again that if someone tried that, they would likely not even get a full game as anyone setting up against it would call them out, likely not play, and worse that person would then get a reputation as "that guy" to be avoided since they try to game the system.
When The General's Handbook was announced, and the world rejoiced. Points, finally! The game is "complete" now. It will be balanced. And I felt a lump in my throat, because I knew what that meant: That any other way to play is now dead and buried. Points, once introduced to the game, will consume any other style and become the default way of playing. Communicating with your opponent goes out the window, because you no longer need to; the points are the only communication you need. When The General's Handbook finally came out, and not everything had points, that fear grew larger, because it meant anything without points might as well not exist. And that proved to be true: Those nice battalions in the Start Collecting boxes, or the larger boxed armies, or the new (Christmas 2016) battleforces? They don't exist, because they have no points. Grombrindal, the legendary White Dwarf himself, has zero reason to be bought by most players because he has no points, so you can't use him, and GW has stated that not everything is intended for all three playstyles, which as a result means they won't be used at all. As I feared, Matched Play quickly subsumed everything else to become the only way to play Age of Sigmar. The General's Handbook might as well have started on page 98 (that's the section where Matched Play begins).
My problem with this is twofold: First, Matched Play is one of the styles to play, not the only style. It's clearly intended for tournament type events where you need something to balance and can't reasonably chat with your opponent. Yet here we are, I would wager, where the vast majority of games have boiled down to two questions:
1. How many points?
2. Which of the six Pitched Battle scenarios will we use?
Everything else may as well not even be there because god forbid a scenario require deployment other than the standard. All those interesting Battleplans from the various campaign books and Battletomes might as well not exist anymore, because they aren't roughly even Pitched Battles with roughly even Matched Play army construction. The game goes from being wildly varied to droll and boring, with most of the options gutted because nobody wants to take the time and effort to be responsible hobbyists.
But wait, you say. We need points. Otherwise nothing will stop someone from fielding nothing but the most powerful units. Except yes, things will. Someone who does that is going to face the same problem that someone doing the hypothetical "ten Nagash" list is going to face, that is they will be labeled a ******, refused a game and then get a bad reputation around the group until either they are forced out or learn to play nicely.
Warhammer, perhaps more than any other wargame, is a social game. There is an implied agreement to not game the rules. There is an implied agreement to not try to out cheese one another. A little communication goes a long way, and could still go a long way. There is no reason other than not wanting to bother with talking anyone beyond asking points that Matched Play is now, for many people, the only way to play.
Perhaps the biggest issue with Matched Play is what it implies. You see, before Matched Play , the onus was on the player. If you saw someone who tried to game the system by taking only the best units, or infinite summoning, or the hypthetical ten Nagashes, or any other boogeyman situation, you knew they were a ****** who had zero regard for their opponents and only cared about themselves. With points though, you can still in many cases field very powerful units, even game the system in other ways, because the points aren't balanced across the board (look at any hypothetical power list), except now the player can pretend they aren't really a ******, that they're playing by the rules so there's nothing wrong or that the rules are to blam. Communication, responsibility and accountability take a backseat because there's a fallback that absolves the player from any of those things.
Note I'm not at all saying Matched Play is bad. I'm saying that Matched Play being the default way to play is bad, not because of what it is but because it cuts out a large swathe of the game, for fear of hypothetical situations that never actually happened and likely will never happen except with the rudest of players who literally don't care about anything other than saying they won a game, and it's just as likely those players wouldn't play Warhammer because of all its flaws as a competitive game. Matched Play is perfectly fine, dare i say it necessary, for tournaments, and I'm glad it exists. I just dislike that Matched Play has become, for many of us, the only way to play Age of Sigmar and anything that isn't Matched Play no longer has a place in the game.
In short, I feel that Matched Play should remain an option for Age of Sigmar, not the option. There is IMHO more fun to be had by using Open Play and actually communicating and not being a ****** than there is just throwing down with a 2,000 point list and pretending that it's somehow balanced because it has 3+ Battleline units, 0-6 Leaders, 0-4 Behemoths and 0-4 Artillery. Plus, this puts the onus back on the player to play responsibly. And as a result the game will be better off.
Keep Matched Play where it belongs: The domain of tournaments and structured leagues. For everything else, show some responsibility towards an enjoyable game
TL;DR I firmly believe that while Matched Play has its uses, it's a mistake to have it be the default style of play (which for many of us it has become such) because it eliminates responsibility and accountability from the players and instead shifts blame to "But I'm playing by the rules with a legal army!" and, on top of that, all the hypothetical "boogeyman" scenarios such as fielding 10 Nagashes or simply "filling the deployment zone with the most powerful units in the game" never actually happened because there's already a mechanism in place to curb it: Someone who did that would find it hard, if not impossible, to get anyone to play with them because they would clearly be a jerk. Removing this responsibility and accountability means the player is no longer responsible for their own actions and to not be a jerk, and can hide behind the rules to claim that they aren't a jerk.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2016/12/13 01:11:48
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
Well I agree it should not be the default. I have yet to play a matched play game and I own the General's Handbook. That doesn't mean I want play it but we have had fun playing open and see no reason to change.
The spear wait's not for it's master, but rushes forth to guard the way.
2016/12/13 01:38:09
Subject: Re:The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
You're right... and wrong. Matched play shouldn't be the default in all situations. BUT situations where you don't have that much contact with others (like pick up style games) it comes in handy and could be used as the standard to set quick baselines.
2016/12/13 01:55:10
Subject: Re:The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
I dont play matched either, but I understand why it is the default even in the AoS wasteland where I am, and its simple. IT was what a great many if not the majority of folks wanted in AoS to begin with.
2016/12/13 08:29:59
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
I think that seeing matched play as the excuse WAAC players use, while justified to a certain extent, is an unproductive stance to take. The real problem here is the players, and the idea that matched play can be an excuse is the specific portion that needs to be addressed. The solution is not in modifying/avoiding matched play but in not accepting 'its the rules!' as an excuse to be a complete dick on the tabletop. I understand this is hard for some people who have to make do with competitively-minded groups but that still doesn't change what the core problem actually is.
I said it before, I will say it again. Matched play or points is an excuse for a nerd/geek to become a jock and be proud of it. Since for most of us we can't be jocks with boides, we can do it with our minds.
I find it amazing and shocking that I try to get a game of 40K or what ever and try to get a different type of game in and I can't, but as soon as I say points, people will ask "how many?" and then I can get a game off.
So for me to get a game in, I need to do this. Just shocked nobody is willing to try and play other ways. It's basically their way or no way at all.
I even find this with points as well. It has to be a bound army. If I ask to play an unbound army in 40K, forget it. Now a lot of people don't have a bases to go buy or judge by how much better they are than other people.
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
2016/12/13 13:34:42
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
Davor wrote:I said it before, I will say it again. Matched play or points is an excuse for a nerd/geek to become a jock and be proud of it. Since for most of us we can't be jocks with boides, we can do it with our minds.
I find it amazing and shocking that I try to get a game of 40K or what ever and try to get a different type of game in and I can't, but as soon as I say points, people will ask "how many?" and then I can get a game off.
So for me to get a game in, I need to do this. Just shocked nobody is willing to try and play other ways. It's basically their way or no way at all.
I even find this with points as well. It has to be a bound army. If I ask to play an unbound army in 40K, forget it. Now a lot of people don't have a bases to go buy or judge by how much better they are than other people.
Yes, my reasoning is that Open Play can do all the things Matched Play can for non-tournament games, but requires people to 1) Communicate and 2) Bear responsibility for what they do. But the community seems to want to limit communication as much as possible if they don't have to.
NinthMusketeer wrote:I think that seeing matched play as the excuse WAAC players use, while justified to a certain extent, is an unproductive stance to take. The real problem here is the players, and the idea that matched play can be an excuse is the specific portion that needs to be addressed. The solution is not in modifying/avoiding matched play but in not accepting 'its the rules!' as an excuse to be a complete dick on the tabletop. I understand this is hard for some people who have to make do with competitively-minded groups but that still doesn't change what the core problem actually is.
That is the core problem, but Open Play already did that with an implicit social agreement, and the community raged because they didn't want to abide by it, as far as I can tell. In fact, Open Play did that even more because the rule was, literally, there are no rules. Hence why you see boogeymen like the "ten Nagash" or as Peregrine (as a staunch anti-AOS/anti-Open Play debater) liked to say:
Peregrine wrote:
One player can bring a "normal" army while the other can literally fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game. And because it is a competitive game anyone with the ability to buy that many models is going to do it every time and win effortlessly.
Except that never actually happened because while yes, it is a competitive game (by design of not being a cooperative game), I can't think of any situation where someone would actually do that and not expect social repercussions for doing it. That's the sort of "boogeyman" that killed Open Play in the womb for most gaming groups, the fear that someone could do something so insultingly rude to their opponent and somehow just say "It's the rules, deal with it". There were ways to agree on things; I did some hunting and found what was supposedly GW official guidelines from an email (pre-General's Handbook) that was something like 0-2 Heros/Monsters, 1-12 Warscrolls and I forget what else, but it would easily be something you could agree on e.g. "Let's both bring up to 1 hero on monster, up to 2 heroes on foot, 4-5 warscrolls each, and up to 1 monster or artillery" and assuming neither player wanted to be a dick, reasonably expect something that would not be a blowout, at least not any more than you can already get with the way Matched Play is (e.g. Clan Skyryre can build an insanely nasty "fair and balanced" army with Matched Play)
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2016/12/13 14:59:42
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
I tend to think of this as a "path of least resistance" sort of thing. In many communities, setting up a matched play game involves two questions... "do you want to play" and "how many points". All other potential questions are covered by the rules. Setting up an open play game involves much more negotiation. This negotiation takes time and almost requires both players to have a similar outlook on the game.
Matched play is just quicker and easier to work with. Open play feels more suitable for small groups of friends who have the time and familiarity with each other to negotiate all of the extra house rules they'll need to make the games work.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
While it would be a mistake to assume that everywhere Matched Play is the default, take a few things into consideration:
1) online discussions tend to center around the competitive aspect of the game. As such, many of the posters are competitive players and if you just follow internet forums it can seem that everyone is matched play competitive style players. (confirmation bias)
2) matched play / competitive players tend to be the ones out in public more. Open play, casual players I find in my experience tend to play in their homes and are not as vocal. As such, it can seem that everyone is matched play competitive style players (confirmation bias)
Now taking all that into account, while it is safe to say that not everyone is matched play only, I do think its accurate to say most people that are visible in the community will be matched play only and that the bulk of the community wants matched play to be the default because that is the play style.
This is not because most people want a tournament game. In fact, I have found that true tournament players are in the minority in nearly every community I have been a part in or have played with.
The real reason that most people favor matched play is simply that is the style of play that is most conducive to pick up gaming, which is by and large the most common form of gaming today and has been for nearly 15 or more years now. It is the expected norm.
Pick up gaming is attractive for a variety of reasons.
* its faster
* its easier
* it doesn't involve a great investment of personal time or energy
* it doesn't require a great deal of communication
This will never change. I cannot possibly see this changing ever.
The reason why in my neck of the woods going against matched play norm will get you railroaded out of town on a flaming train is simply people want consistency. They want the rules to be the same in every game in a system. They don't want people introducing house rules in the public context (private in your house is fine but as soon as you step out into a public event with rules alterations, you better be wearing kevlar)
That means that anything NOT matched play is not consistent and thus subject to great personal politicing to get any foothold.
There are some good points to be had to not want matched play as the standard. Strong points in my opinion. However, the vast bulk of players of AOS, indeed any wargame today, are pick up gamers that don't want to negotiate rules and don't want to invest more time or energy than need be to play a game and then go home. As such, I don't feel that this is possible to achieve (making matched play not the default)
If the vast majority of players are pick up gamers, then whatever makes pick up games the easiest will be what is the default.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 15:16:57
2016/12/13 15:17:55
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
Kriswall wrote: I tend to think of this as a "path of least resistance" sort of thing. In many communities, setting up a matched play game involves two questions... "do you want to play" and "how many points". All other potential questions are covered by the rules. Setting up an open play game involves much more negotiation. This negotiation takes time and almost requires both players to have a similar outlook on the game.
Matched play is just quicker and easier to work with. Open play feels more suitable for small groups of friends who have the time and familiarity with each other to negotiate all of the extra house rules they'll need to make the games work.
I have some counter to these arguments. I just love a good debate which I think this is.
There is 86 400 seconds in a day. So what was that you said about time?
Even if doing the "want to play? How many points" as your only negotiating you still need "requires both players to have a similar outlook on the game" other wise it can just go as bad without points. Just read the many threads on Dakka alone on bad or horrible game experiences. All of them if not then most of them with points. Let me please add to that. Maybe about taking some of those few thousands of seconds in a day and discuss with your opponent you will not be adding more horror stories on Dakka in the future and actually Wasting More Time playing a game with points than you would have been with discussing with your opponent or as you said "negotiations".
Come on, lets say it for what it is. It's talking to someone. Negotiating, like come on, really man? These are plastic toy soldiers after all. This is not a hostage situation (unless you are saying we are holding those few precious seconds as hostage), we are not negotiating a peace treaty among countries, we are all just smuchks who play with plastic to soldiers. What is wrong with talking with other smuchks, or spankers, or blokes, or hell fellow like minded people who have the same interests as yourself and just talk to them like humans instead of lawyers like we claim GW to do and be.
As for quicker and easier. Two words that are not associated with 40K at all. Same for Fantasy. Ironically quicker and easier two words associated with Age of Sigmar. How Ironic you said that for an Age of Sigmar game.
Any more excuses? I am sure I can find if not me, others will have an answer for your excuse. What can be said about "not having points" can be said for "having points".
Ball is back in your court.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 15:18:14
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
2016/12/13 16:08:37
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
I disagree with the OP. For me Warhammer is all about having fun, and I can say the following of AoS:
1. I have more fun playing Matched Play than Open Play.
2. I have more fun with points than without.
3. I have had more fun since the GHB came out than before.
4. My best games have been at tournaments.
5. With points I even have fun getting smashed in the face. Without points I didn't.
6. I found even with negotiating, open games are lackluster. They offer no tactical enjoyment for me, it feels like there is no skill involved and we are just rolling dice to "see what happens". There is nothing to try and improve on, and makes the game ultimately pointless.
I think unpointed games only work with a GM. Be it a 3rd party, or one of the players taking on a GM style role and providing a challenge for the opponent rather than trying to win the game. And moving forward that's the only way I would want to play them. I never want to play an unpointed open pick up game again, and I had so so many more bad game experiences than I do now playing exclusively with points.
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
2016/12/13 16:36:26
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
This might be a bit of a side thing, but one of my big worries with matched play is what I see being said is the normal game size: it's usually 1500-2000 pts, right?
part of my initial interest in AoS is because i wanted something casual and fun with a small model count. i simply do not have enough to make a 2000pt army.
realism is a lie
2016/12/13 16:48:04
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
amazingturtles wrote: This might be a bit of a side thing, but one of my big worries with matched play is what I see being said is the normal game size: it's usually 1500-2000 pts, right?
part of my initial interest in AoS is because i wanted something casual and fun with a small model count. i simply do not have enough to make a 2000pt army.
Don't worry AoS scales to 1000 points really well! :-) I often only take 1000pts to the store because I only have time for a quick game and my opponents are always obliging. It also lets me collect multiple small forces of Death, Chaos and Destruction to play as well as my (now 3000+) Order army.
Just take 1000 points, and if the opponent wants to use more use a scenario like the Ritual that is weighted in favour of the smaller force :-)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 16:48:45
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
2016/12/13 17:43:34
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
I can't really blame people for wanting to do easier pick up games. Real life takes a lot of effort so its fair that people don't want their leisure activities to take a lot of effort as well. Further, points give a standard that everyone can negotiate from, which means even players who were communicating to figure out an even match can do so much more easily using matched play. Which again brings the problem back not to the system being used but to holding people responsible for being jerks regardless of the context. Because being a jerk is being a jerk, using points as an excuse to do so is no better, if not worse.
amazingturtles wrote: This might be a bit of a side thing, but one of my big worries with matched play is what I see being said is the normal game size: it's usually 1500-2000 pts, right?
part of my initial interest in AoS is because i wanted something casual and fun with a small model count. i simply do not have enough to make a 2000pt army.
Don't worry AoS scales to 1000 points really well! :-) I often only take 1000pts to the store because I only have time for a quick game and my opponents are always obliging. It also lets me collect multiple small forces of Death, Chaos and Destruction to play as well as my (now 3000+) Order army.
Just take 1000 points, and if the opponent wants to use more use a scenario like the Ritual that is weighted in favour of the smaller force :-)
Outside of tournaments I see 1000 points cropping up pretty often. Especially if that's all you have I don't see finding games to be a huge problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/13 17:44:51
It can scale, but I find in general it's a better experience to NOT just say "How many points?" but actually give some thought to the reasons behind the battle (and it doesn't have to be much). As I said in the OP I don't have a problem with Matched Play as a thing, my issue is more that it's largely the default in many groups, and extends so far as to eliminating things like additional Battleplans because they aren't "balanced" since they aren't Pitched Battle scenarios. That to me is a problem because many of those Battleplans are not only well balanced but provide an instant storyline for why the game is taking place so it doesn't just become yet another random one-off game that means nothing because there's literally no reason the armies are fighting other than Bob and Jim both decided to go to the game shop that day and ended up playing a game of Warhammer.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2016/12/13 18:53:16
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
I can certainly see how just using the pitched battle scenarios would get boring. Fortunately my group, while using those as default, has no problems going with other scenarios from time to time. 3-way battles using the FFA scenarios given in the open play section of the GHB (with a few modifiers) have been a blast.
A very long time ago, a friend wanted to play Warhammer 40k - 2nd edition.
So, I showed up with the space marine contents of the starter box (Two tactical squads, with flamers and missile launchers), plus a Rhino I had bought.
My friend had a Chaos army. It consisted of Abaddon, Kharn, Ahriman, a Blood Thirster, and a Great Unclean One.
I explained that was really unlikely to be a fair match, but he wanted to try it, and two turns later that was over. I was annoyed.
He was really surprised, because while he had special characters, I outnumbered him four to one. I explained that really, any one of these models was more than a match for what I'd brought, and after some testing that was true.
Later, we got into points, added it up, and started having fun, balanced games.
Today, I bet we could just set units down that were roughly fair, and play a game.
The lesson, I think, is that matched play and points are perfect for people who don't know each other or the game so well that they can balance by dead reckoning. But, if two friends know the game well, they can enjoy the freedom of open play in a way new players or strangers may have difficulty with.
2016/12/13 20:01:06
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
I am with Oggthrok on this one. I do like the more open and loose style, but without points I worry about being an "accidental jerk." I have seen games where the people thought the lists were even but didnt realize they had taken elite units against basic units. (Think 10 Ard' boys to fight 10 Dwarf Warriors) terribly imbalanced but both players thought they were bringing a their faction's most basic unit. With points, i find it much less stressful. I can know without much effort that an extra Gyro' is needed with the Wariors to keep things close-ish. So while I would love to always play narrative type games, matched is my default because realistically I am just not that familiar with most armies and couldnt really set a "balanced" list.
2016/12/13 20:13:24
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
amazingturtles wrote: This might be a bit of a side thing, but one of my big worries with matched play is what I see being said is the normal game size: it's usually 1500-2000 pts, right?
part of my initial interest in AoS is because i wanted something casual and fun with a small model count. i simply do not have enough to make a 2000pt army.
Don't worry AoS scales to 1000 points really well! :-) I often only take 1000pts to the store because I only have time for a quick game and my opponents are always obliging. It also lets me collect multiple small forces of Death, Chaos and Destruction to play as well as my (now 3000+) Order army.
Just take 1000 points, and if the opponent wants to use more use a scenario like the Ritual that is weighted in favour of the smaller force :-)
I am not saying you are wrong Bottle, but this is where Wayne is correct. It's the "community" telling others how to play. We must play your way, and this to me is wrong. Nobody should have to conform to anything and the community should have an open mind which again Wayne says, it doesn't. The problem where you did err Bottle is saying he should be playing at 1000 points. Why? What if he doesn't want to? Now you are forcing him to do so. "Just take 1000 points," right there, you just told him what to do and "how to play." What if money is really an issue right now for him? Now you just shamed him that he can't do 1000 points. You just made 1000 points looks so frivolous that it's nothing, while to others it could mean a lot.
While you said it politely, you should have said
" while you might get games at lower points it will be really hard to do so, and the community usually is minimum 1000 points when playing pick up games. If you want an easier time to find games, that is what you should be aiming at.
@ Amazingturtles, I don't know what the "common points" are, 1500-2000pts vary from region to region. All you can do is see what it is in your region or area and try that. In my area sadly 1000 points is minimum as well. I wanted to try and get a game or two with 500 or less points so I can get a better feel for the game but I have no takers. Thing is, I don't want to glue my minis and then later say "I should have done something else" so this is why I wanted small point games.
Now the "community" is telling me it's not good enough so now I have lost a lot of interest because I have to conform to others, and in conforming how others play, I am taking the enjoyment out of my hobby now because now I am not having fun putting together my minis. I am also told I can't mix alliances where before I could.
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
2016/12/13 20:26:34
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
In the two geographical areas where I used to live and still follow, AoS participation went up exponentially after the General's Handbook. My local GW has - off the record, of course - pretty much said the same. I was out of AoS until points arrived as well, TBH. And before I get accused of being WAAC, my only army is Scourge Privateers who have four - or five, if you include Fellheart - options, and are basically garbage on the table. However, points gave my army and hobby a goal, structure and framework that was previously absent.
In order to save AoS, GW compromised on its original "laissez-faire" philosophy, and this has understandably annoyed many of the original players who were loyal to the game from the start. However, this is another WHFB situation, where there weren't enough such people to sustain one of their two core games. As a result, the options were either push the game towards the mainstream player, or watch it die. GW chose the former, and therefore went with Rowntree's pragmatism over Kirby's and/or Jervis's stubborn idealism.
PS: And by the way, nobody is telling anyone how to play. People are choosing their own preferred way organically, and if points players have reached the critical mass to be the only way to guarantee a game, so be it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/12/13 20:47:51
2016/12/13 20:28:50
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
amazingturtles wrote: This might be a bit of a side thing, but one of my big worries with matched play is what I see being said is the normal game size: it's usually 1500-2000 pts, right?
part of my initial interest in AoS is because i wanted something casual and fun with a small model count. i simply do not have enough to make a 2000pt army.
Don't worry AoS scales to 1000 points really well! :-) I often only take 1000pts to the store because I only have time for a quick game and my opponents are always obliging. It also lets me collect multiple small forces of Death, Chaos and Destruction to play as well as my (now 3000+) Order army.
Just take 1000 points, and if the opponent wants to use more use a scenario like the Ritual that is weighted in favour of the smaller force :-)
I am not saying you are wrong Bottle, but this is where Wayne is correct. It's the "community" telling others how to play. We must play your way, and this to me is wrong. Nobody should have to conform to anything and the community should have an open mind which again Wayne says, it doesn't. The problem where you did err Bottle is saying he should be playing at 1000 points. Why? What if he doesn't want to? Now you are forcing him to do so. "Just take 1000 points," right there, you just told him what to do and "how to play." What if money is really an issue right now for him? Now you just shamed him that he can't do 1000 points. You just made 1000 points looks so frivolous that it's nothing, while to others it could mean a lot.
While you said it politely, you should have said
" while you might get games at lower points it will be really hard to do so, and the community usually is minimum 1000 points when playing pick up games. If you want an easier time to find games, that is what you should be aiming at.
Sorry Davor, but that was a bizarre comment to read. I am pro-fun with Warhammer and everything that you quoted was a friendly recommendation on how to have fun with AoS in the way @amazingturtles wanted. Not sure how you could take it any other way but it seems in the pursuit of moaning you are twisting my words and being overally pedantic.
In my experience AoS is super fun at 1000 points - of course you can go lower if you want. I am just sharing first hand experience which I deemed to be useful. I have played 1000 point games. It was fun. It was easy to get a pick up game that size. I am not forcing anyone to do or play anything, just saying what's fun. On the flip side you and Wayniac seem much more focused on complaining about how others are enjoying the game in my view.
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
2016/12/13 20:39:54
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
Bottle wrote: On the flip side you and Wayniac seem much more focused on complaining about how others are enjoying the game in my view.
That's the way it reads to me too.
Personally, the best games i've played have been 1000 pt. matched games and a few entirely unbalanced games with a a clear narrative (like a small amount of sylvaneth vs. a massive horde of skaven.)
It all comes down to personal preference and saying/implying that using pts. is the 'wrong' way to play is just as ridiculous as acting as if pts. is the ONLY way to play.
My ideal opponent is someone who wants to enjoy playing, first, with the logistical details second.
2016/12/13 20:46:18
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
Bottle wrote: On the flip side you and Wayniac seem much more focused on complaining about how others are enjoying the game in my view.
Not at all my friend. While a lot of my posts may seem negative in a lot of Dakka posts lately, I have nothing against GW but keep an open mind and maybe a bit cynical. I don't like complaining at all. I just see things different from a lot of people and while I should do what the Orc says in Lord of the Rings, "Keep my mouth shut", I like to participate and give my views just like how everyone does. Maybe I am old. Maybe I don't socialize so I don't know how to take people on the internet. When I read something, I do it in more than 140 characters. So maybe reading your brief statement I took it the wrong way.
Maybe sometimes when I read something I nit pick too much, I make sure 1+1+1=3 when I shouldn't really be nit picking. For that I apologize.
As for Wayniac, I don't think he complains either just see things differently than I or anyone else does.
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
2016/12/13 21:03:48
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
I never actually said Open Play was the "right" way, I said that people should take responsibility and accountability and not just say "But points". I did, in fact, say Matched Play is fine for tournaments and events. But, at least in my area, I see it as a replacement for even just working out what kind of game you want to play with your opponent.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2016/12/13 21:08:05
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
Wayniac wrote: I never actually said Open Play was the "right" way, I said that people should take responsibility and accountability and not just say "But points". I did, in fact, say Matched Play is fine for tournaments and events. But, at least in my area, I see it as a replacement for even just working out what kind of game you want to play with your opponent.
You still need to agree on what you want with points.
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam
2016/12/13 21:21:26
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
Wayniac wrote: I never actually said Open Play was the "right" way, I said that people should take responsibility and accountability and not just say "But points". I did, in fact, say Matched Play is fine for tournaments and events. But, at least in my area, I see it as a replacement for even just working out what kind of game you want to play with your opponent.
To share my experience. I have played lots of games of negotiated open play and lots of games of pointed matched play and the pointed match play games where more fun. Simple as that. You might want to consider that your local players also feel the same way; that matched play is more fun on the regular than open.
My personal advice to you would be, don't worry what the default is. The most important thing is for people to play what's fun for them. And if you want to play more narrative games what are you doing proactively to ensure that happens? Forgive me as my view of you only comes from your threads - but to be very honest all I see you do is complain. On the other hand there are people organising all kinds of cool narrative games. From big events like Holy Hammer and RAW16 to small one-offs like that comment in your thread on TGA (that game looked freaking awesome, didn't it!?) - are you setting up those sorts of games? Are you inviting people to come play them? It might be that your locals don't want to play those sorts of games - so be it, let them have fun with matched play. But if you want to have fun with narrative and open play you are going to have to put in the effort to find the right players and set up the right game.
I always try and stay positive. You can find the right players who enjoy the game the same way as you if you keep looking - and what you are likely to find is that tournament matched play players are also keen to play narrative if the effort is put in. RAW16 is the example, those guys put all that effort in and got a packed house of regular tournament players embracing narrative play for a weekend. Good luck :-)
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
2016/12/13 21:25:45
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
The thing is, relying on social pressure is basically trying to make the best of a bad game. There's plenty of reasons to do this, but players shouldn't have to.
I used to play Commander (EDH) with friends pretty regularly with the same premise. It works ok, but after a while it wears on people. Someone really loves something that others don't want to see anymore so they agree not to play it, but that takes something they love about the game away from them.
Ultimately, a game is more fun if people can play what they want. As much as players try to divide themselves along these lines, the truth is, a game that strives to be "competitive" generally does a better job providing the "casual" ideal of a system where players can take whatever they want. There's not a perfect system out there, but I realized long ago that if I feel like I need to dictate my opponent's options in order to enjoy a game, I'm probably better off playing a different game.
2016/12/13 21:57:50
Subject: The Elephant in the Room: Why Matched Play Should Not Be the Default
Kriswall wrote: I tend to think of this as a "path of least resistance" sort of thing. In many communities, setting up a matched play game involves two questions... "do you want to play" and "how many points". All other potential questions are covered by the rules. Setting up an open play game involves much more negotiation. This negotiation takes time and almost requires both players to have a similar outlook on the game.
Matched play is just quicker and easier to work with. Open play feels more suitable for small groups of friends who have the time and familiarity with each other to negotiate all of the extra house rules they'll need to make the games work.
I have some counter to these arguments. I just love a good debate which I think this is.
There is 86 400 seconds in a day. So what was that you said about time?
Even if doing the "want to play? How many points" as your only negotiating you still need "requires both players to have a similar outlook on the game" other wise it can just go as bad without points. Just read the many threads on Dakka alone on bad or horrible game experiences. All of them if not then most of them with points. Let me please add to that. Maybe about taking some of those few thousands of seconds in a day and discuss with your opponent you will not be adding more horror stories on Dakka in the future and actually Wasting More Time playing a game with points than you would have been with discussing with your opponent or as you said "negotiations".
Come on, lets say it for what it is. It's talking to someone. Negotiating, like come on, really man? These are plastic toy soldiers after all. This is not a hostage situation (unless you are saying we are holding those few precious seconds as hostage), we are not negotiating a peace treaty among countries, we are all just smuchks who play with plastic to soldiers. What is wrong with talking with other smuchks, or spankers, or blokes, or hell fellow like minded people who have the same interests as yourself and just talk to them like humans instead of lawyers like we claim GW to do and be.
As for quicker and easier. Two words that are not associated with 40K at all. Same for Fantasy. Ironically quicker and easier two words associated with Age of Sigmar. How Ironic you said that for an Age of Sigmar game.
Any more excuses? I am sure I can find if not me, others will have an answer for your excuse. What can be said about "not having points" can be said for "having points".
Ball is back in your court.
86,400 seconds in a day... the overwhelming majority of which are already spoken for. On an average weekday, I wake up around 6:30AM to get ready for work. I finish work around 5:00PM and drive home (~1hr) to change/eat dinner with my family. Assuming it's a gaming night, I'll head back out and get to the store around 7:00PM. The store closes at 9:00PM. So... your 86,400 seconds has been pared down to 7,200 seconds. Playing a matched play game can eat up most of that time. Adding in an element of negotiation before every game and we usually run out of time. Heck, we sometimes run out of time as it is. Not everyone has all day free to devote to gaming. In the rare instance where I have a lot of time, I'm more than happy to negotiate and play an open play game. Rarely happens. On an average night, the choice is usually between playing a game with as many predefined expectations as possible (matched play) or not playing due to lack of time. MOST of the people I play with have the same sort of schedule and real life time commitments.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
