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.

A lot of it does seem to be entirely dependent on area. Folks like myself, auticus and possibly Kanluwen are in areas where pickup games/matched play/wannabe competitive games are the norm, and anything else you might as well not even bother. Others seem to be in more open-minded areas where someone isn't going to laugh at you for suggesting not using points.

@Kan, reading your post it's more apparent to me than ever that we see the world completely differently. The aggression in your posts, the talk of "toxic individuals" and general vitriol towards fellow hobbyists etc makes it clear that I don't want to continue having a discussion. I'm having fun playing Age of Sigmar matched play, I hope you are having fun too.

 Bottle wrote:
@Kan, reading your post it's more apparent to me than ever that we see the world completely differently. The aggression in your posts, the talk of "toxic individuals" and general vitriol towards fellow hobbyists etc makes it clear that I don't want to continue having a discussion. I'm having fun playing Age of Sigmar matched play, I hope you are having fun too.

Put him on ignore and re-read the last page. I was actually quite surprised by just how much more reasonable this thread seemed after I did that.

To expand on what Kriswall mentioned earlier, free for all games are a great way to create a self-balancing environment (either with or without points) and also provide plentiful narrative opportunities that many people may not have seen before. Simply put, the stronger players get ganged up on and often end up losing to enemies who brought an unquestionably weaker force to the table. FFA also puts more emphasis on playing rather than winning---only one player out of the bunch gets to win after all.

Wayniac wrote:
Once again, my issue is not Matched Play as an option. I'm glad they added it as well. My problem is that it has, for all intents and purposes, taken over. If I want an Open Play/Narrative game, there's a good chance nobody else will be interested in it because, presumably, they're too afraid of something "unbalanced" coming up. So I'm in a similar position to people like auticus, where I'd rather have the option to use Open Play if I wanted to, or Matched Play if I wanted that. But as it stands, it's basically one of two options:

1) Play Matched Play
2) Don't get to play at all

That's a really bad situation to make because it puts Matched Play from being an option to being, as stated before, the "one true way" where it's you conform to the rest of the herd, or you are forced to leave. I don't hate Matched Play at all, I think it was a good option to add because you need some structure for tournament games to avoid having bloated comp systems. However, I don't think that Open Play was that bad for pickup games; maybe 20 years ago in the early days of the internet but now, at least from what I've seen, shops and/or groups have Facebook groups or Meetup groups or a variety of ways to coordinate things before going to the store to play, so IMHO there should be no excuse for lack of communication. For example, there are constantly posts on my GW's facebook group about if anyone will be down for a game; it would be easy to iron out all of the discussion about how many units/heroes/etc. to bring on that page. Yet for some reason people don't, and I honestly cannot fathom why because it seems trivially easy to me if you post a response to someone asking for a game by saying well I want a small game so how about 5 units, up to two heroes, and one behemoth, and of course the implied "don't be a dick" which should never have to be stated.

For me really, the biggest blow to having Matched Play as the default is it goes right back to "Must have X to play". The appeal of AOS was that you could build things up as you go, and only play with a few units as you built up your army. Matched Play kicks that in the face and goes back to "Bring 2k points or you don't get a game" which is bad overall because it ignores the fact AOS was meant to lower the barrier to entry.

The argument has always been that without Matched Play, you could break the game, but I think that was an exaggeration since you can still "break the game" with Matched Play.

While I'm sorry for your situation, I do feel like there's not really a lot to be done about the situation.

I mean, when AoS came out, it was hailed by a lot of people as the end of the boring, WAAC mentality that had corrupted the spirit of the game, and a whole bunch of other hyperbole. But the fact that GW released the Generals Handbook, and that Matched Play immediately became the way to play the game... isn't that a sign that maybe the people clamoring for the thematic, narrative driven, bring what you want type of game were always a minority? And unfortunately, when you're a minority, chances are you're not going to get your way.

WHFB had a target audience (Matched Play); AoS had a different target audience (Narrative). And when the two are combined... Matched Play is the dominant Group, which sadly means that the Narrative guys, when the two groups can't agree, will have to accept that they're not getting their way, try and reach out for others with similar interests, or simply find Another game to play.

Is that "fair"? Probably not. But what can you even do about it?

 Mangod wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Once again, my issue is not Matched Play as an option. I'm glad they added it as well. My problem is that it has, for all intents and purposes, taken over. If I want an Open Play/Narrative game, there's a good chance nobody else will be interested in it because, presumably, they're too afraid of something "unbalanced" coming up. So I'm in a similar position to people like auticus, where I'd rather have the option to use Open Play if I wanted to, or Matched Play if I wanted that. But as it stands, it's basically one of two options:

1) Play Matched Play
2) Don't get to play at all

That's a really bad situation to make because it puts Matched Play from being an option to being, as stated before, the "one true way" where it's you conform to the rest of the herd, or you are forced to leave. I don't hate Matched Play at all, I think it was a good option to add because you need some structure for tournament games to avoid having bloated comp systems. However, I don't think that Open Play was that bad for pickup games; maybe 20 years ago in the early days of the internet but now, at least from what I've seen, shops and/or groups have Facebook groups or Meetup groups or a variety of ways to coordinate things before going to the store to play, so IMHO there should be no excuse for lack of communication. For example, there are constantly posts on my GW's facebook group about if anyone will be down for a game; it would be easy to iron out all of the discussion about how many units/heroes/etc. to bring on that page. Yet for some reason people don't, and I honestly cannot fathom why because it seems trivially easy to me if you post a response to someone asking for a game by saying well I want a small game so how about 5 units, up to two heroes, and one behemoth, and of course the implied "don't be a dick" which should never have to be stated.

For me really, the biggest blow to having Matched Play as the default is it goes right back to "Must have X to play". The appeal of AOS was that you could build things up as you go, and only play with a few units as you built up your army. Matched Play kicks that in the face and goes back to "Bring 2k points or you don't get a game" which is bad overall because it ignores the fact AOS was meant to lower the barrier to entry.

The argument has always been that without Matched Play, you could break the game, but I think that was an exaggeration since you can still "break the game" with Matched Play.

While I'm sorry for your situation, I do feel like there's not really a lot to be done about the situation.

I mean, when AoS came out, it was hailed by a lot of people as the end of the boring, WAAC mentality that had corrupted the spirit of the game, and a whole bunch of other hyperbole. But the fact that GW released the Generals Handbook, and that Matched Play immediately became the way to play the game... isn't that a sign that maybe the people clamoring for the thematic, narrative driven, bring what you want type of game were always a minority? And unfortunately, when you're a minority, chances are you're not going to get your way.

WHFB had a target audience (Matched Play); AoS had a different target audience (Narrative). And when the two are combined... Matched Play is the dominant Group, which sadly means that the Narrative guys, when the two groups can't agree, will have to accept that they're not getting their way, try and reach out for others with similar interests, or simply find Another game to play.

Is that "fair"? Probably not. But what can you even do about it?

That is the problem. I came back to GW games after 15 years in part because AOS looked like they were finally addressing concerns and saying screw it we are going to embrace the game in the style we feel it should be, only to be met with lots of rabid yelling about "muh points" and "waaah where's my balance" and "dumbing it down" to where they just threw up their hands and said okay here's something resembling very rough points, have at it.

Is there more to the game than speed and shooting? Feels like shooting is nuts and if you can't fire back or cross the table immediately your just gonna get torn up.

Went against an order battalion with waywatchers Nomad Prince and Hurricanum that just decimated my forces before I got anywhere.

TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.

 Kriswall wrote:
[

Open Play is fine, but it requires a lot of trial and error to make balanced as you learn other players' armies, play styles and relative skill levels. This is great if you have the time. Lots of people either don't have the time or have it and choose to use it on other things. Matched Play flat out eliminates the need to haggle about balance and lets you simply get down to playing.

To be fair, while matched play allowed for a more pragmatic and practical approach that lets you simply get down to playing, let's not make the mistake of assuming that it doesn't also require a lot of trial and error to make balanced games as you learn other players armies play styles and skill levels (what were you saying about time...?). Points are not always even. And even in good points based systems (I'm thinking warmachine...), the synergies inherent in the game require a lot of,trial and error to make balanced, effective lists. Matched play eliminates the need to haggle about balance, it doesn't eliminate the problems.

 Kriswall wrote:
[
If I have 2 hours per week to game, which is about average for me, I'd rather be playing for 2 hours per week from week 1 and NOT spending weeks/months slowly building up to a comfortable level of balance. I have no interest in having to play several games before coming to an agreement that maybe unit XYZ is a little strong and that you should take fewer to make for a more balanced game. It's so much easier to say unit XYZ is worth 100 points and then have the community as a whole debate on whether or not 100 is appropriate.

See above. All you are doing is arguing semantics and nomenclature. Matched play can just as easily require weeks and months slowly building up to a comfortable level of balance.

In any case, arguing that having the xyz being worth 100ppints and then having 'the community' decide whether or not it's appropriate is better than playing several games and then coming to an agreement thst xyz is a little too strong and you should take fewer to make a more balanced is being a bit dishonest. You are describing the same thing. And how does 'the community' decide that xyz at 100pts is appropriate, other than playing the several games you seem to scoff at in the same sentence. In any case, I question whether 'the community' would even have thst debate. Having an official cost means gamers will often than not will not have the debate, regardless of the suitability of that points value for that unit. If it's poor, it will Be ignored, if it's good, it will be usedand abused with shrugged shoulders and indifference. Now, fair enough- you can go straight in without any hassle and negotiation, and spend all your two hours a week gaming, and still have a horrible outcome, because of this and you are not necessarily better off, or in a better position.

 Kriswall wrote:
[
That's one reason I like PPC. It takes the "people should talk to each other about what balance looks like" and expands it to an entire global community where everyone can take part in the conversation. It's like Open Play on steroids.

Sometimes what matters more is the guy in front of you, and not the global community.

 Mangod wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Once again, my issue is not Matched Play as an option. I'm glad they added it as well. My problem is that it has, for all intents and purposes, taken over. If I want an Open Play/Narrative game, there's a good chance nobody else will be interested in it because, presumably, they're too afraid of something "unbalanced" coming up. So I'm in a similar position to people like auticus, where I'd rather have the option to use Open Play if I wanted to, or Matched Play if I wanted that. But as it stands, it's basically one of two options:

1) Play Matched Play
2) Don't get to play at all

That's a really bad situation to make because it puts Matched Play from being an option to being, as stated before, the "one true way" where it's you conform to the rest of the herd, or you are forced to leave. I don't hate Matched Play at all, I think it was a good option to add because you need some structure for tournament games to avoid having bloated comp systems. However, I don't think that Open Play was that bad for pickup games; maybe 20 years ago in the early days of the internet but now, at least from what I've seen, shops and/or groups have Facebook groups or Meetup groups or a variety of ways to coordinate things before going to the store to play, so IMHO there should be no excuse for lack of communication. For example, there are constantly posts on my GW's facebook group about if anyone will be down for a game; it would be easy to iron out all of the discussion about how many units/heroes/etc. to bring on that page. Yet for some reason people don't, and I honestly cannot fathom why because it seems trivially easy to me if you post a response to someone asking for a game by saying well I want a small game so how about 5 units, up to two heroes, and one behemoth, and of course the implied "don't be a dick" which should never have to be stated.

For me really, the biggest blow to having Matched Play as the default is it goes right back to "Must have X to play". The appeal of AOS was that you could build things up as you go, and only play with a few units as you built up your army. Matched Play kicks that in the face and goes back to "Bring 2k points or you don't get a game" which is bad overall because it ignores the fact AOS was meant to lower the barrier to entry.

The argument has always been that without Matched Play, you could break the game, but I think that was an exaggeration since you can still "break the game" with Matched Play.

While I'm sorry for your situation, I do feel like there's not really a lot to be done about the situation.

I mean, when AoS came out, it was hailed by a lot of people as the end of the boring, WAAC mentality that had corrupted the spirit of the game, and a whole bunch of other hyperbole. But the fact that GW released the Generals Handbook, and that Matched Play immediately became the way to play the game... isn't that a sign that maybe the people clamoring for the thematic, narrative driven, bring what you want type of game were always a minority? And unfortunately, when you're a minority, chances are you're not going to get your way.

WHFB had a target audience (Matched Play); AoS had a different target audience (Narrative). And when the two are combined... Matched Play is the dominant Group, which sadly means that the Narrative guys, when the two groups can't agree, will have to accept that they're not getting their way, try and reach out for others with similar interests, or simply find Another game to play.

Is that "fair"? Probably not. But what can you even do about it?

Not play in public places?

That's basically about it, because the reason Matched Play seems to be "dominant" is not necessarily because the thematic, narrative driven players are a minority but because the Matched Play advocates are the ones who tend to be out in public more often than not.

It's not unlike the Lord of the Rings games. The models were, apparently, selling well enough that GW went after The Hobbit license...but how many times did you ever see games played in a local shop?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.

Yes and you know what will happen instead? Those things won't exist to the community because the matched crowd normally outnumbers (or at least are more vehement in how their way is best) the narrative. That's how it is at my shop anyways. If it's not available for Matched Play, it's not available period. There is no group or even a group preferring Matched and a group preferring Narrative (I'd be happy with that since it would mean I could do both!), it's either you conform to Matched or you don't get games at all.

Wayniac wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.

Yes and you know what will happen instead? Those things won't exist to the community because the matched crowd normally outnumbers (or at least are more vehement in how their way is best) the narrative. That's how it is at my shop anyways. If it's not available for Matched Play, it's not available period. There is no group or even a group preferring Matched and a group preferring Narrative (I'd be happy with that since it would mean I could do both!), it's either you conform to Matched or you don't get games at all.

Would that group even be there at all if there was no matched play?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.

Yes and you know what will happen instead? Those things won't exist to the community because the matched crowd normally outnumbers (or at least are more vehement in how their way is best) the narrative. That's how it is at my shop anyways. If it's not available for Matched Play, it's not available period. There is no group or even a group preferring Matched and a group preferring Narrative (I'd be happy with that since it would mean I could do both!), it's either you conform to Matched or you don't get games at all.

Would that group even be there at all if there was no matched play?

Who knows? That's a player problem though, because that group refused to police themselves and instead cried for something "official" to do it for them instead of doing it themselves or, before TGH, using one of the many fan balancing systems (some of which were better than GW's official version)

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You did literally the same thing I did. You attempted to paint it as though Wayniac(and by extension other Open/Narrative players, since his thread is just sharing his thoughts on the dilemma faced by said players because of the fact that some people believe "Matched Play should be the default" for whatever reasons they might have) has done nothing but whine.

Matched Play has attracted a certain element who believe they should not have to do anything beyond plop models down and play.

While there's a certain attractiveness to that prospect, it also has downsides in the fact that points are not actually a good measure of balance. If I brought a Wanderer army consisting of the Waystone Pathfinders, paying the appropriate points and whatnot, with as many Glade Guard, Sisters of the Watch, Waywatchers, Wayfinders, and Waystriders as I could fit in against a person bringing a purely melee army...

I am going to win, unless I have bad rolls. That many ranged shots are going to make the game unfun for the other player.

Can points prevent that from happening? Nope!
Can talking to someone prevent that from happening? Yup!

Yeah... so... the melee player could also just out deploy you by a LOT and then bum rush you, not really worrying about the comparatively small percentage of his army he loses to shooting before rolling into you like an angry, jagged tide.

Do you actually know what Waystone Pathfinders do? Serious question.

Realm Wanderers: Waystone Pathfinders have travelled the realms for countless years and know many hidden paths. Instead of setting up the units in this battalion on the battlefield, you can place them to one side. In your first movement phase, set up all of these units wholly within 6" of the edges of the battlefield, and more than 9" from any enemy models. This is each unit's move for that movement phase.

So. How do you outdeploy that?

I know my Ironjawz absolutely crushes heavy shooting armies when I get into range and with all the movement enhancement, getting into range usually happens either turn 1 or 2, depending who goes first and where armies deployed.

Protective Volley: Perhaps the greatest weapon of the Waystone Pathfinders lies in their ability to cut down any foes that draw close enough to threaten their leader with devastatingly effective volleys of bow-fire. In your hero phase, pick one enemy unit within 12" of the battalion's Nomad Prince. All other Waystone Pathfinder units can immediately make a shooting attack against that unit as if it were the shooting phase.

And then let's not forget that if someone really wanted to be a twerp about it, they can take nothing but Sisters of the Watch(any 4 units from Eternal Guard, Glade Guard, Wildwood Rangers, and Sisters of the Watch) so that they can fire shots at you as you charge in("Loose Until the Last" special rule).

Open Play is fine, but it requires a lot of trial and error to make balanced as you learn other players' armies, play styles and relative skill levels. This is great if you have the time. Lots of people either don't have the time or have it and choose to use it on other things. Matched Play flat out eliminates the need to haggle about balance and lets you simply get down to playing. If I have 2 hours per week to game, which is about average for me, I'd rather be playing for 2 hours per week from week 1 and NOT spending weeks/months slowly building up to a comfortable level of balance. I have no interest in having to play several games before coming to an agreement that maybe unit XYZ is a little strong and that you should take fewer to make for a more balanced game. It's so much easier to say unit XYZ is worth 100 points and then have the community as a whole debate on whether or not 100 is appropriate. That's one reason I like PPC. It takes the "people should talk to each other about what balance looks like" and expands it to an entire global community where everyone can take part in the conversation. It's like Open Play on steroids.

Except for the whole part where you've randomly assigned a value to the unit, rather than limiting the number of said unit you can take of course...

Yeah, just like Open Play.

I'm honestly not sure what your points are. Some Wanderers Battalion is overpowered and not fun to play with or against? If what you say is all accurate, the likely outcome is that the dude gets half a game before I concede and never play him again. Any player willing to take advantage of an army build with a clear and generally acknowledged power imbalance isn't going to be easy to negotiate with regardless of whether or not points are in use. Granted, this is the first I've heard of a Wanderers Battalion being overpowered and 'god tier'. Shooting is nice, but generally isn't going to wipe out an army where the most basic troops have 4+ armor and 2 wounds each... especially when deploying so close means you've saved me the trouble of having to run you down.

You obviously hate everything about Matched Play and everything about the players who enjoy Matched Play. At the end of the day, Open Play had a chance and didn't shine. The General's Handbook, and the Matched Play rules in particular, were an obvious play to save a failing product launch. All available evidence suggests that sales of AoS have increased since Matched Play was introduced. If you like Open Play, play it. If nobody is willing to play Open Play... ask yourself why. If your community has universally chosen Matched Play, there is almost certainly a reason.

 Kriswall wrote:
You obviously hate everything about Matched Play and everything about the players who enjoy Matched Play. At the end of the day, Open Play had a chance and didn't shine. The General's Handbook, and the Matched Play rules in particular, were an obvious play to save a failing product launch. All available evidence suggests that sales of AoS have increased since Matched Play was introduced. If you like Open Play, play it. If nobody is willing to play Open Play... ask yourself why. If your community has universally chosen Matched Play, there is almost certainly a reason.

For my group, I know exactly the reason why, and it makes me sad to think about it.

Wayniac wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.

Yes and you know what will happen instead? Those things won't exist to the community because the matched crowd normally outnumbers (or at least are more vehement in how their way is best) the narrative. That's how it is at my shop anyways. If it's not available for Matched Play, it's not available period. There is no group or even a group preferring Matched and a group preferring Narrative (I'd be happy with that since it would mean I could do both!), it's either you conform to Matched or you don't get games at all.

Would that group even be there at all if there was no matched play?

Who knows? That's a player problem though, because that group refused to police themselves and instead cried for something "official" to do it for them instead of doing it themselves or, before TGH, using one of the many fan balancing systems (some of which were better than GW's official version)

Cried, I'm starting to notice a pattern with those who hate matched play at this point, and it's that you always seem to have to slip in something derogatory towards those who don't enjoy what they prefer.

But it does sound like you wouldn't have had any game at all beforehand, which does answer my question.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.

Yes and you know what will happen instead? Those things won't exist to the community because the matched crowd normally outnumbers (or at least are more vehement in how their way is best) the narrative. That's how it is at my shop anyways. If it's not available for Matched Play, it's not available period. There is no group or even a group preferring Matched and a group preferring Narrative (I'd be happy with that since it would mean I could do both!), it's either you conform to Matched or you don't get games at all.

Would that group even be there at all if there was no matched play?

Who knows? That's a player problem though, because that group refused to police themselves and instead cried for something "official" to do it for them instead of doing it themselves or, before TGH, using one of the many fan balancing systems (some of which were better than GW's official version)

Cried, I'm starting to notice a pattern with those who hate matched play at this point, and it's that you always seem to have to slip in something derogatory towards those who don't enjoy what they prefer.

But it does sound like you wouldn't have had any game at all beforehand, which does answer my question.

Have you missed where I said, both in the original blog post and elsewhere, i don't hate matched play, I just think it should stay for tournaments/events and not regular games? Or the fact that it's been others who refer to myself and others as "whining" and "moan moan moan matched play" which is actually derogatory and dismissive?

Wayniac wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.

Yes and you know what will happen instead? Those things won't exist to the community because the matched crowd normally outnumbers (or at least are more vehement in how their way is best) the narrative. That's how it is at my shop anyways. If it's not available for Matched Play, it's not available period. There is no group or even a group preferring Matched and a group preferring Narrative (I'd be happy with that since it would mean I could do both!), it's either you conform to Matched or you don't get games at all.

Would that group even be there at all if there was no matched play?

Who knows? That's a player problem though, because that group refused to police themselves and instead cried for something "official" to do it for them instead of doing it themselves or, before TGH, using one of the many fan balancing systems (some of which were better than GW's official version)

Cried, I'm starting to notice a pattern with those who hate matched play at this point, and it's that you always seem to have to slip in something derogatory towards those who don't enjoy what they prefer.

But it does sound like you wouldn't have had any game at all beforehand, which does answer my question.

Have you missed where I said, both in the original blog post and elsewhere, i don't hate matched play, I just think it should stay for tournaments/events and not regular games? Or the fact that it's been others who refer to myself and others as "whining" and "moan moan moan matched play" which is actually derogatory and dismissive?

I can read the thread, it's been going on back and forth, though it took a sharp turn upward when Kan came in.

My problem is I rarely meet advocates of open play that don't speak insultingly.

For me it's largely been the opposite (both here and elsewhere). It's almost always the competitive crowd that speaks disparagingly of others, the casual crowd seems to always just get fed up that they are basically told to "sit down and shut up". Same with the "pro-GW" and "anti-GW" sentiments, the pro crowd are always the ones who start insulting the others or tell them to just leave rather than address anything they said.

It's not limited to games though. I saw the attitude in World of Warcraft too which I played for many years; the people who didn't want to rush through everything were told to shut the feth up or go form their own group, never the ones who wanted to blow through everything as fast as possible.

@Wayniac, have you tried putting a shout out on your groups Facebook page for a fellow narrative/open player? I know you play ghoul kings, maybe send out a suggestion to play through the battleplans from the battletome as a mini campaign with someone. If they are reluctant because of no points - meet them half way and agree a points value to play the games with. Maybe giving one side a boost in points of the battleplan suggests one side should have more models.

I would try doing that, and if I got no answer, I would do it again and again on a weekly basis until I did. I would set up threads on TGA looking for fellow Florida players and make the drive to theirs on a weekend to play a game.

I would look into attending Holy Wars in early 2017 (it's a bit of a trek for you - but ironically just down the road from Auticus who also says he has no narrative players close by - you should go to that Auticus, sounds like the sort of event you would love :-) - Wayniac, you would probably have to fly, but the experience would be worth it. It draws players from all over the states so you might meet someone closer to home.

Out of interest what are people like me going to do without Matched play? I'd like to have a game without entering negotiations.

pm713 wrote:
Out of interest what are people like me going to do without Matched play? I'd like to have a game without entering negotiations.

Adapt?

I mean, I'm sure you're not opposed to playing a 'new' Wargame, if it was a good game, right? And any new gsme would cost you an investment of time, Money, effort etc etc as you get to grips with it. No different here. And while it has its hurdles (different hurdles,to matched play), open play does allow you to approach your gaming in a completely different way. As the name suggests, it opens it up and can really broaden your horizons. Personally, I find creativity and embracing the narrative is its own reward, and it's done nothing but enhance and rejuvenate my enjoyment of the entire hobby. Matched play can get stifling when it's all you do.

As was said, you're not negotiating a peace treaty, and for what it's worth, it's actually a very enjoyable approach to take.

I play different games for different reasons, and while warmachine is my 'go to' game for the pragmatism and practicality of its 'organised play', I genuinely enjoy the creative/diy/narrative games that I play at my friends house on a Friday evening with flames of war, lotr sbg (historical proxy), infinity and various historicals- we're giving saga a whirl in the new year!

Deadnight wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Out of interest what are people like me going to do without Matched play? I'd like to have a game without entering negotiations.

Adapt?

I mean, I'm sure you're not opposed to playing a 'new' Wargame, if it was a good game, right? And any new gsme would cost you an investment of time, Money, effort etc etc as you get to grips with it. No different here. And while it has its hurdles (different hurdles,to matched play), open play does allow you to approach your gaming in a completely different way. As the name suggests, it opens it up and can really broaden your horizons. Personally, I find creativity and embracing the narrative is its own reward, and it's done nothing but enhance and rejuvenate my enjoyment of the entire hobby. Matched play can get stifling when it's all you do.

As was said, you're not negotiating a peace treaty, and for what it's worth, it's actually a very enjoyable approach to take.

I play different games for different reasons, and while warmachine is my 'go to' game for the pragmatism and practicality of its 'organised play', I genuinely enjoy the creative/diy/narrative games that I play at my friends house on a Friday evening with flames of war, lotr sbg (historical proxy), infinity and various historicals- we're giving saga a whirl in the new year!

Okay. But you aren't talking about a good new game. You're asking me to have what will be a long and potentially annoying discussion to play a game of AoS. If it was some masterpiece and a game of such masterful quality it was the pinnacle of wargaming then I would happily talk about what kind of game every time. But it's not. It's a decent game where you're asking me to spend a lot of time and money to prepare for games I might not even have because I have to ask and debate what I'm doing all the time.

I can still do all the narrative and different games and still use points without having to deal with some annoying discussion every game. I don't mind playing a new wargame. I do mind playing a time consuming, expensive wargame that requires irritating discussions because I have much better things to do with my time. Having points simplifies things greatly and makes AoS worth playing.

pm713 wrote:
Out of interest what are people like me going to do without Matched play? I'd like to have a game without entering negotiations.

Upon reading this question, my mind made the basic connection between that and what my group did before the GHB launched. Unfortunately my next thought was how useless of an answer it was. But fwiw my group used PPC to play with points for the year or so pre-ghb. Being former fantasy players from 8th the list building was already familiar to us, and our initial attempts at figuring out balanced matches from scratch ended disastrously.

I can look at two forces now and roughly gauge how balanced they are against each other but that's only because I now have a ton of experience. Without that even two forces that seem balanced at the start of the game may turn out to be far from it, and I think the factor of needing to go through multiple one-sided games to figure things out (or have a third party with experience) is the second biggest reason for why people prefer matched play. That also shows how matched is good even for the negotiators; it gives a baseline to start from that makes things much easier than starting from nothing.

I think that ultimately in the end we all have individual choices to make.

If our primary gaming environment is a local game store then expect that your primary default is going to be whatever the competitive meta and rules and scenarios are supposed to be that favor the pick up gamer mentality and wants/desires.

If you want to delve outside of that, it needs be done either in private or events that do not use the standard need be created and run.

Understanding of course that if you set out to create a narrative style event that uses scenarios outside of the GHB or uses non points that you should expect low attendance at first and even some slack or personal attacks from members of your community that are strongly against seeing something like that being a public event.

That being said, I speak from experience when I say that it can become successful but it does come at a cost of needing thick skin to see it through.

Anecdotal Evidence. But when the GHB dropped, AOS surged in my area. Nearly my entire group picked up an army, as did I. All of us where interested, but didnt want to deal with the hassle of, every time we meet up at the LGS we haggle and try to figure out what we want. We each arrive with a 2500pt list, roll on the thing and BOOM we are off. Our old Tomb king player even came back. He removed all the square bases off his models and put them on better ones.

pm713 wrote:

Okay. But you aren't talking about a good new game.

Aren’t I? I’m talking about engaging in a game mode you’ve never done before. No different to what you’d need to do if you picked up a new game. you asked what people like you would be expected to do without matched play. I answered.

pm713 wrote:

You're asking me to have what will be a long and potentially annoying discussion to play a game of AoS.

Am I? Nothing needs to be either ‘long’ or ‘potentially annoying’ about it. I enjoy this style of play, and I certainly don’t want to be standing around for hours on end deciding how we’re gonna play. In my experience, (and I’ve been playing this way with flames of war, historicals and even infinity for a fair few years now), the discussion can be sorted out in five or ten minutes. If you need longer – well, you have my details on FB. Drop me a line. The more you do it, like anything, the easier it becomes. Its not the hurdle you imagine it to be.

pm713 wrote:

If it was some masterpiece and a game of such masterful quality it was the pinnacle of wargaming then I would happily talk about what kind of game every time. But it's not. It's a decent game where you're asking me to spend a lot of time and money to prepare for games I might not even have because I have to ask and debate what I'm doing all the time.

I’m asking you to put a bit of effort into game building and community building. Neither of which is a bad thing. I’m also suggesting, from personal experience that putting some time and money to prepare for games can also lead to games being more enjoyable.

And then, there is the alternative with matched play (or ‘organized’ play, in every game, from 40k to warmachine etc) where you don’t have to do these things, where you don’t have to ask and debate what you face, and you can still very easily end up with blood angels versus scatterbike eldar, or Karchev mad dogs spam versus Skorne. Because points aren’t necessarily balanced either, or a guarantee for a fun game. And sure, while you’re getting that ‘effortless’ game that you seem to want every time, is it always worth the lack of effort? What happens with matched play, when everyone simply chases the meta, 90% of the game gets ignored and everything gets stale because you’re fighting the same few lists all the time with the same few lists.

And how do you know that open play isn’t some kind of masterpiece? Or a pinnacle of wargames? Have you ever played it? Like I’ve said, from my own personal experience, while I enjoy matched play equivalents, there is great value to the open play approach. Its done nothing but good things for my hobby enjoyment. The fact we approach multiple wargames this way now should suggest to you that the approach has some merit and that maybe, its worth considering. And for what it's worth, I genuinely would encourage you to give it a go.

pm713 wrote:

I can still do all the narrative and different games and still use points without having to deal with some annoying discussion every game.

You can, in theory, but that isn’t really what happens. What happens in reality is the second point-based pick up play becomes ‘the standard’ the vast majority of gamers simply will not deviate from the tiny bounds of officialdom, and people like Wayne either end up being forced to play a game mode they’re not interested in, or they don’t get to play. You turn up, and ask about narrative and different games, and people will look at you like you have two heads, and wont comprehend the idea of games beyond ‘75pts steamroller, roll for scenario’ or whatever the equivelant is in your game of choice. What happens is games will typically devolve into ‘meta’, and you end up with a handful of builds that people crutch on. And a lot of the creativity of the community dries up. (and then, amusingly, people will complain about the game being stale and/or broken, and will blame the company for it. Its not like there’s something they could do in the meantime either, is it?)

And that discussion isn’t necessarily ‘annoying’. Matched play, and the long term consequences of matched can be just as ‘annoying’ and stifling in the long term. I’ve actually found discussing my games beforehand to be rather empowering in terms of game building and scenario building. And anyway, I enjoy dealing with people. Wargaming doesn’t end at the table edge. The hobby is bigger than that, and encompasses far more than what transpires on the board.

pm713 wrote:

I don't mind playing a new wargame. I do mind playing a time consuming, expensive wargame that requires irritating discussions because I have much better things to do with my time. Having points simplifies things greatly and makes AoS worth playing

Ultimately, it's about changing perceptions and changing approaches. Taking some time out to organise and gsme-build is not necessarily a bad thing, and discussions don't have to be 'irritating'.

Don’t worry PM – I do get it. I see, and appreciate the value in organised play, and I see the value in a solid, robust points system – there is a reason that Warmachine is my go-to game after all. As you say, it simplifies things, and makes things a lot more pragmatic and practical, and there is a time and a place for that, and great value in sometimes, just being able to chuck stuff out of the box and have a game without any drama or fuss. but bear in mind that a lot of things are sacrificed on that altar to make things ‘simple’ and pragmatic, and I disagree that it is always worth it, all of the time. Like I said earlier, is that effortless game worth the lack of effort?

I also value the narrative approach, and the discussion involved in game building is a part of that. I’ve found it an interesting and enjoyable experience overall. In terms of having much better things to do with my time – I don’t actually have all that time to go gaming any more, thanks to real life commitments. I can do a few hours on a Friday evening, and the occasional weekend (usually afternoon, rarely both days!) and for me, maximising the value from the very limited time I spend for my wargames is crucial. And I’ve found that oftentimes, that ‘irritating’ discussion required for game building goes a long way towards making the interesting and enjoyable games that make those few hours I can put towards my wargames worth it. I’ve had ‘effortless’ pick up games that have been utterly lousy, and frankly, a complete waste of time, to the extent that I might as well not have bothered in the first place, and frankly, if having a bit of a chat towards game building beforehand would prevent, or help limit those occurences, then frankly, I see no harm in it, and am all for it.

You’re not wrong in wanting the things you do – please don’t think that that is the thrust of my argument. Because, if anything, I do ‘get it’, and I do want exactly the same things as you do. But there is a bigger picture out there, and matched play is only part of it. You can play games without matched play. You can enjoy these games and find immense fulfilment from them. Don’t dismiss them, and think about this approach the next time that you find matched play becoming stale.

Cheers.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Anecdotal Evidence. But when the GHB dropped, AOS surged in my area. Nearly my entire group picked up an army, as did I. All of us where interested, but didnt want to deal with the hassle of, every time we meet up at the LGS we haggle and try to figure out what we want. We each arrive with a 2500pt list, roll on the thing and BOOM we are off. Our old Tomb king player even came back. He removed all the square bases off his models and put them on better ones.

Same for me. When there is no Generals Handbook and I tried to get some people to get into Age of Sigmar all I got was "eye rolling from the owner of the gaming store" and nobody interested from the player base. Now that the Generals Handbook is out, a few people got interested in Age of Sigmar now.

Ironically still can't get any games in now. Why? "Negotiations" are still needed. Still need to play their way. "Oh you don't have enough points, when you have more then get back to me". So nothing has changed at all. You still need to discuss with your opponent.

I came back to find this thread very active...

Before I say anything else (as I generally prefer the points) I should say I went back and read the OP, and really, I have to agree with him. But, it's not an AoS thing - it's a phenomenon you see in a lot of games where people want to "win" more than anything, and it kind of ruins the "play" part of a game.

As an example, long ago I played the excellent MMO "City of Heroes." I played a Super Strength tank, who soaked damage while my Blaster friends shot up the bad guys. Much XP was reaped.

Then, one day, it was revealed that a certain build was over powered. A Fire/Devices Blaster could render a group of enemies unable to attack them, and then could drop powerful area of effect attacks on them. It was so powerful, you could solo your way through levels in fractions of the time it used to take.

Now, no one needed my tank. Everyone I knew "repecced' their characters into Fire/Devices Blasters. I'd ask to team up, and they would explain that a tank would only slow down their XP per minute ratio, which needed to be kept high, because winning. I waited until they all hit level 50, assuming they'd get it out of their systems when they hit max level and ran out of content and realized there was no prize at the end of the game for getting there fastest. Instead, I'd watch as they made new Fire/Dev characters... and start all over again.

I was mad at the game designers back then, because they weren't patching the problem fast enough, and that was ruining the game for me.

But, the designers really did nothing wrong. My friends could have said "You know what, this is getting old, I'm going to play a scrapper this time." Or, I could have rolled up a new character, made them a Fire/Devices Blaster, and been in on the fun. We were both married to our way of doing things, unable to see why the other would enjoy their inferior game style.

Luckily, the MM part of MMO means I was eventually able to meet enough grumps that we could make an interesting team.

With AoS its a little harder, but I would recommend something as straitforward as trying to get a campaign going from the books. Like, post a sign, "looking for players" and explain you want to play only the forces that exist in that storyline, and play it out as a storyline, not a one-off competition. You might not get any takers, but if you get even one, you have a chance of developing the start of a group who can enjoy playing two ways, instead of just one.

Deadnight wrote:
I’m asking you to put a bit of effort into game building and community building.

This struck a chord. I have no problem with community building. It's a necessary and generally rewarding activity if you want to be part of a community. Game building, on the other hand, is not something I have even a little bit of interest in. I expect the game designers to have already done all of the game building that needs to be done. Age of Sigmar's Open Play system feels like an unfinished game where I'm being required to create the balance mechanism on an opponent by opponent basis by playing a series of play test games.

I recently started playing Star Wars Destiny, a card and dice game. To make a deck, you choose 30 points worth of characters, a single battlefield location and a 30 card deck with no more than 2 of each card in your deck. It would be ludicrous to think that FFG would instead have said "pick however many characters you want to play with, a location and then make a deck with whatever you feel is appropriate". Nobody would play. That's how AoS feels to many of us. It feel like an unfinished game where the authors never bothered to write the chapter on army construction and expect us to add house rules to make the game feel balanced. Some of the house rules are easy. "Bringing 40 Nagash models is a jerk move." Others are harder. How many Ardboyz represent a fair fight against 15 Liberators? 10? 15? 20?

Also, and I know this has been brought up before... if I'm forced to create the balance mechanism and decide what constitutes a fair fight, any victory is going to feel meaningless as I'll never know if I won because of my in-game actions or because I got the balance mechanism wrong. Many of us don't want to play a competitive game where the two options are loss and hollow victory. When I play games, I'll either pick a competitive game where everyone has an equal chance of winning and victory is based on player skill during the game and the list building steps OR a cooperative game where you win or lose together OR a true narrative game (like DnD) where playing the game is the whole point and there is no real winner or loser.

 Kriswall wrote:

This struck a chord. I have no problem with community building. It's a necessary and generally rewarding activity if you want to be part of a community. Game building, on the other hand, is not something I have even a little bit of interest in. I expect the game designers to have already done all of the game building that needs to be done. Age of Sigmar's Open Play system feels like an unfinished game where I'm being required to create the balance mechanism on an opponent by opponent basis by playing a series of play test games.

You say it feels unfinished, and you're not wrong. But, someone else will say 'freeform' and 'open ended' and be all the happier for it. Make your own sandwich, or buy at subway?

I mean, this is a creative time consuming and intensive hobby. We assemble minis. We convert them. We paint them. We write lore about them. We live in other worlds. Why should we stop being creative when we put them on a board and bringing their stories to life? Thst just baffles me when at that point people are so shocked and sometimes outraged at the idea of us taking charge of our own hobby. When I was a kid, I didn't need someone else's rules to go and play with my toys and my friends. We were perfectly capable of making up our own games. don't see it as being any different now.

 Kriswall wrote:

I recently started playing Star Wars Destiny, a card and dice game. To make a deck, you choose 30 points worth of characters, a single battlefield location and a 30 card deck with no more than 2 of each card in your deck. It would be ludicrous to think that FFG would instead have said "pick however many characters you want to play with, a location and then make a deck with whatever you feel is appropriate". Nobody would play. That's how AoS feels to many of us. It feel like an unfinished game where the authors never bothered to write the chapter on army construction and expect us to add house rules to make the game feel balanced.

Not really relevant. I've read historical rules sets like the core hail Caesar rules that didn't have any force construction rules. Some things are meant to be free form and open ended and this is not a bad thing. You call it ludicrous, but it's not. It's just a different approach, and one that you apparently unable to comprehend because you are so used to 'game fully ready out of the box'. Yeah you are not wrong, but you are not right either. Not everything needs to be fully functional or prepared for immediate use by you. For some, including myself, there is great joy is in the diy approach, the construction, whether it's legos, kit cars, wargames or whatever else. You are missing out, by not having any interest in this side of the hobby. It's a real shame, if you ask me.

 Kriswall wrote:

Some of the house rules are easy. "Bringing 40 Nagash models is a jerk move." Others are harder. How many Ardboyz represent a fair fight against 15 Liberators? 10? 15? 20?

Let's see then. We can both 'read' a units stats, right. No reason you can't make a decent judgement from there. Adapt as required, if necessary.

As well. the end of the day, what do I bring with butcher3, or which caster do I take when my opponent pops down Caine or Stryker, if I want a fair fight. In a lot of ways, it's exactly the same thing, just a slightly different angle.

 Kriswall wrote:

Also, and I know this has been brought up before... if I'm forced to create the balance mechanism and decide what constitutes a fair fight, any victory is going to feel meaningless as I'll never know if I won because of my in-game actions or because I got the balance mechanism wrong.

Uh huh, and what guarantees do you have that if the game designer created the balance mechanisms, thst it constitutes a fair fight and that you won because of your amazing 'skill'? (Or did you just take scatterbike eldar to his blood angels?)I mean, one of the last games of WMH mk2 I played, I one turned the entirety of my mates armies with my murder ponies on one flank, and my winter guard sprays on the other. His army had some of the most notoriously nasty infantry in the game-banes. And yet I Won the game without even trying. That's WMH, one of the better balanced wargames out there. Was it fair, did I win with 'skill' or did I simply have the perfect hard counter? Was it a hard fought contest, a 'fair fight' was it meanigless? I mean, the points were the same, so it was fair, right? Or was it? The simple fact is that the exact Same thing happens in every game kris. Holding it against open play because you might somehow get it wrong and you claim it To be meaningless and 'hollow' is a double standard. It's short sighted and incorrect because the exact same things happen in the gsme mode you say you prefer, but you seem to be oblivious to it or don't want to hear about it With the greatest respect to you kris, (and believe me. I'm not trying to be cheeky here) all you are doing by thinking this way is deluding yourself.

 Kriswall wrote:

Many of us don't want to play a competitive game where the two options are loss and hollow victory.

I've been playing open play games for about three or four years, and I've never had a 'hollow' victory. Why do you think I've been playing it for this long, and why do you think I enjoy it as much as i do If I can't get it to work? sDespite how you think, it's nowhere near as hard to get interesting and fair games. If 'losses' and 'hollow victories' are all you think you can do with it, I really don't know what to say other than you are being extremely unfair and short sighted to it.

We've had some, frankly brilliant, tense and very engaging battles that often came down to a knife edge. And as I can ably demonstrate with no end of examples, while I have had plenty similarly brilliant, tense and engaging battles in 'matched play' where I didn't have to do the work about balancing things, being honest about it. there are plenty 'matched play' based competitive game victories that are just as hollow as what you claim to hate in open play. I've been on both ends of them. As have you, probably.

 Kriswall wrote:

OR a cooperative game where you win or lose together OR a true narrative game (like DnD) where playing the game is the whole point and there is no real winner or loser.

Nothing stopping you approaching wargames cooperatively either - and dnd is no more narrative than wargames. If it was a good game, and we both enjoyed it, then we both 'won', someone wins and someone loses tactically, but that doesn't necessarily have to be 'the point'. I've had some excellent rpg sessions in my time back home in Ireland where worlds were brought to life like magic by a great GM buddy of mine, and I've had some rpg sessions that were mindless drudgery and so focused so purely and so obsessively on mechanics that any idea of story or narrative therein was a farce. DnD is not any 'truer' for narrative. It's just as open to 'gaming', to 'munchkining', and to obsessing over stats and 'crunch' at the expense of story, and storytelling as any other nerd hobby.This kind of approach, regardless of medium, takes a lot of work to get right, and to get good. And frankly, from my POV, regardless of medium, it's worth it. You get out what you're willing to put in.

What makes a game narrative ultimately is how you approach it. You don't need 'rules' to bring a story to life or to evoke what is happening. And FYI, it might surprise you, but wargamers were doing their games this way for decades prior to when you or I was born. Before the Internet, and before the idea of organised play was a thing, this is how wargames were done. This is how they had to be done. This is how plenty wargamers, especially historical players still play wargames. And there's is nothing at all wrong with it.