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.

Let me pose the question though, we can safely establish that the points are, at best, a rough guide. Some points are too high, some are too low, some things are just nonsensical (e.g. Stormfiends as Battleline). Are 10 'Ardboyz @ 180 points equal to 10 Liberators @ 200?

Basically, it seems like we still have to negotiate, just the very first step is taken out because the points approximate (very poorly IMHO) an equal force. If we each bring a 2000 point list, is it really that more balanced than saying let's each bring 6 Warscrolls, 2 heroes and up to 1 behemoth? Or is it just the illusion that you're using something, rather than nothing, to determine what's fair and, in that case, why is "Do you want a 2000 point game?" better than saying "Let's each bring 6 units and a couple of heroes, but only one behemoth"? What makes one more valid than the other?

Ultimately, I get that Matched Play is here to stay, as much as I'm not a fan of it subjugating all other styles. I get that a lot of players wouldn't touch AoS with a ten-foot pole until points came out (although again I don't understand why a $35 book saying it was any better than deciding yourself), and I find it to be a godsend for running events of some kind. But it still makes me sad that the shining hope of finally having a narrative-focused game without the fuss of points or "Come back when you have a 2k army" would be gone, only to have it essentially be brought back at gunpoint because the status quo is too important to keep.

Hmm... yes, matched play IS better than saying 'lets bring X warscrolls' by a huge margin, even. But 'bring X warscrolls' is in turn better than nothing at all. Balance isn't binary, and something incomplete or flawed is still better than nothing, even for narrative players who now have a ballpark estimate of effectiveness for when they are figuring things out.

Though, it occurs to me, it doesn't sound like the narrative players have been killed by the GHB so much as the narrative players are still there but now outnumbered by the matched players. I rarely ever hear about a thriving narrative community suddenly going all-GHB, rather it's a struggling narrative.community that went to a successful matched play community. Which really brings the problem home in that people who want narrative should think about what they can do to change it rather than figuring out where the blame lies for lack of participation. Certainly the latter won't fix anything.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Hmm... yes, matched play IS better than saying 'lets bring X warscrolls' by a huge margin, even. But 'bring X warscrolls' is in turn better than nothing at all. Balance isn't binary, and something incomplete or flawed is still better than nothing, even for narrative players who now have a ballpark estimate of effectiveness for when they are figuring things out.

Though, it occurs to me, it doesn't sound like the narrative players have been killed by the GHB so much as the narrative players are still there but now outnumbered by the matched players. I rarely ever hear about a thriving narrative community suddenly going all-GHB, rather it's a struggling narrative.community that went to a successful matched play community. Which really brings the problem home in that people who want narrative should think about what they can do to change it rather than figuring out where the blame lies for lack of participation. Certainly the latter won't fix anything.

Yup.

The core issue for Open Play advocates is that quite a few people simply prefer Matched Play. You either have to make Matched Play less attractive by pointing out everything you don't like about it or make Open Play more attractive by selling people on what you like. The first tactic is pretty negative and puts people on the defensive. The second tactic is tough because you're trying to sell a product to someone who isn't actively looking for what you're selling.

Great posts by Ninth and Kriswall! Couldn't agree more with both.

Very simple response to the OP, on why points should be the default:

1) As a (potential) new player I don't want to have to learn everything about the game and how to balance it before I can put my first model on the table. With matched play I could in theory make up a list of the standard point value, buy and paint the appropriate models, and start playing the game. Without that structure I have no idea what models to get. I don't know how many models make up a normal game (since there's no point total to answer the question), I don't know what is considered "cheese" and not allowed, I have to spend vast amounts of time studying the game to figure out what might be an appropriate list. And if I have to do all of that before I can even attempt to play then forget it, I'll play a game that doesn't suck.

2) Relying on social pressure to balance the game turns the community into a toxic mess. Someone thinks a particular army is overpowered, someone else thinks it's just fine, and nobody is going to be happy. The people you shun from the community because they try to bring something you don't consider "fair" will warn other potential new players that your community is a clique of TFGs, the people that lose the argument over what is considered acceptable will resent the others and probably leave as well, and eventually you're playing the one remaining opponent over and over again and the store only sells AoS because GW makes it a package deal with 40k. This kind of stuff is bad enough when the rules provide a structure to fall back on and you can make a few specific (and explicitly stated) house rules to deal with the worst offenders, but it's a death sentence for a community when the only way to restrict an army is to threaten to kick the owner out of the group.

In short, matched play becoming the default is the best possible outcome, and GW's failure to make it the default at the start of AoS was an inexcusable display of incompetence.

But does match play really balance it? Or is it the illusion? What, exactly, is wrong with discussion? That's what I don't seem to get. I love chatting with people while I'm playing, I love coming up with different things to add to a game beyond just a boring "line up across from each other" type of scenario.

I mean, I get having something to balance for competitive/tournament type games. But why does that need to bleed into everything else? The biggest downside for me for Matched Play is that it goes back to the "Come back when you have a 2000 point army" approach, which AOS was meant to get away from (by encouraging you to buy a new unit for your next game and being able to field it immediately), which I've always found to be a problem when the "community" is unwilling to play lower points or accommodate new players; no newbie wants to be told they can't play their first game until they spend a few hundred dollars on an army.

I think GW had the right idea with wanting to get away from points, just they grossly underestimated the reaction of the wannabe tryhards who feel points mean things are fair.

Wayniac wrote:
But does match play really balance it? Or is it the illusion? What, exactly, is wrong with discussion? That's what I don't seem to get. I love chatting with people while I'm playing, I love coming up with different things to add to a game beyond just a boring "line up across from each other" type of scenario.

I mean, I get having something to balance for competitive/tournament type games. But why does that need to bleed into everything else? The biggest downside for me for Matched Play is that it goes back to the "Come back when you have a 2000 point army" approach, which AOS was meant to get away from (by encouraging you to buy a new unit for your next game and being able to field it immediately), which I've always found to be a problem when the "community" is unwilling to play lower points or accommodate new players; no newbie wants to be told they can't play their first game until they spend a few hundred dollars on an army.

In all fairness, if new players don't want to spend a couple hundred dollars to be able to play, they should probably look for a different hobby. The cost of entry is generally considered to be a couple hundred dollars. When I ran a store, I was very up front about the costs associated with an average level of play. 'If you're going to play at home with your friends, buy whatever you think you and your friends will want to play with. If you're going to play here as part of the general community, you'll want to build up to ~2000 points fairly quickly. I can help arrange smaller games to start, but ~2000 is the standard. Let me show you what that means in terms of what you'll want to pick up over the next few visits...'

I think GW had the right idea with wanting to get away from points, just they grossly underestimated the reaction of the wannabe tryhards who feel points mean things are fair.

We really need to get away from personal attacks like "wannabe tryhards". Points provide an excellent starting point. In the overwhelming majority of games I play that have points based lists, the points are generally considered to be fai'. There will always be outliers, but so long as play testing and regular course correction via Erratas and FAQs happen, things tend to stay fair. GW just doesn't seem to really play test and is very bad at issuing FAQs/Erratas, so balance issues remain issues for longer than they should.

Wayniac wrote:

I think GW had the right idea with wanting to get away from points, just they grossly underestimated the reaction of the wannabe tryhards who feel points mean things are fair.

And if the community doesn't want to play without points, will you try and force it? Because the biggest thing there is, is that you still have narrative and matched play with points.. It's just that as people are discovering, not many people actually enjoyed without points, or want to play without points.

Because at this point, it's basically you still have narrative.. But you realize that more people want points, and so narrative players are mad that the community isn't conforming to their view, heck many communities are cropping up because points were added.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

I think GW had the right idea with wanting to get away from points, just they grossly underestimated the reaction of the wannabe tryhards who feel points mean things are fair.

And if the community doesn't want to play without points, will you try and force it? Because the biggest thing there is, is that you still have narrative and matched play with points.. It's just that as people are discovering, not many people actually enjoyed without points, or want to play without points.

Because at this point, it's basically you still have narrative.. But you realize that more people want points, and so narrative players are mad that the community isn't conforming to their view, heck many communities are cropping up because points were added.

My community was completely and totally dead from an AoS standpoint before the GHB came out. Matched Play is the only reason we have a community. Narrative/Open Play wasn't viable in our store setting.

Narrative / Open Play is not viable in a culture that is very competitive period.

and so narrative players are mad that the community isn't conforming to their view,

Yes mad, annoyed, irritated that the style of play that they want to participate in is not supported by the community. The same way that the community was mad, annoyed, and irritated that competitive play wasn't supported in the beginning.

In the end we all play for a certain reason and when a game cannot meet your needs for whatever reason (in this case, the narrative players have to either conform to competitive play or gtfo) it is disappointing for that individual.

I know for me it can be mildly to moderately frustrating and annoying when I want to set up an event that doesn't use matched play scenarios, and am told that encouraging non matched play scenarios is destroying the community because it is "teaching people how to play wrong". Though I have always been a proponent of points... just not skewed unbalanced points. I did not like completely point-less play because we do have a few players running around that made our events less than fun... primarily with the summoning spam garbage and them having access to literally 20,000 points of demon models. Thats why I invested a few solid months in developing Azyr and why it was used so heavily by us and a few other groups (particularly in the beginning before the tournament groups came up with thier own systems and the nature of the beast is that the tournament rules will become the standard).

I'm not a fan of GHB points because there are builds that are massively better than others and like in any game where that is the case, a good chunk of the player base gravitates towards those and thats all you really get to see, but GHB points are better than no points. Not because of some perceived balance it fixes. Its not to me about balance, but rather structure. GHB points kind of have balance, but are still easily broken by people that want to win and only pick the most powerful mathematical builds. Its the structure that really gives points their purpose in GW games I find.

I must say that I had some mixed feelings about the GHB being released. On the one hand, it offered more guidance when it came to building an army, and it motivated me to get my figures all painted so I could field a nice, fully painted and legal 1000 point army.

On the other hand, the introduction of points did exactly what I feared it would: it led to this obsession with efficiency in all things. When I tried to build a list with the models I had and sought advice on how to use them, the responses I got gave off the impression that it didn't matter what I personally liked or wanted to field; all that mattered was how efficient certain builds were and how good or bad they were on the tabletop.

And that bugs me. The "meta" has seemingly become the only thing that matters when it comes to what units you buy and which armies you field. It's really hurt my motivation to work on my army, because I know that some of my personal favourites will barely see the tabletop because they're not "competitive", and thus practically unusable if I want to have more than just a chance to force a draw.

WarbossDakka described it pretty well in one of my other threads:

 WarbossDakka wrote:

It really is an awkward circumstance, which I agree is frustrating. But I think with the new points system you can't play AoS like how we're used to playing it - with what we like. Unfortunately that's what points were made to do - restrict. It is a shame, but it is just a new era for AoS that we must get around.

So yeah, I can get behind the idea of 'Matched Play shouldn't be default'. Maybe I'll change my mind once I've gotten some more games under my belt and found some lists I like playing, but sometimes I really wonder how things would be if Matched Play hadn't come along. But I'm not going to demonize Matched Play-enthusiasts for it either, as they have as much right to have fun as I do

The one thing about points systems I find problematic is their tendency towards granularity. It makes it fairly hard to take what you want when you're buying things in large chunks and you find yourself needing to min-max out of the simple necessity of being 2 points over.

To that end, I've grown fond of systems of classification like how Power Weapons all cost the same but have unique advantages and disadvantages or best of all Guild Ball's design of a FOC with all the options "costing" the same. That doesn't work everwhere, but in general I like less points granularity overall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I'll say a lot of games would probably benefit from more support of smaller point levels and communities would probably benefit from being more open to smaller point games. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but a lot of it comes down to scenarios being really crucial for most game systems to really function for long and most scenarios not scaling well. I'd probably be very healthy for more communities to embrace things like WM/H's new Rumble format to help welcome players not ready for the competitive standard.

Really, it comes down to players having faith in the game itself. A big reason points are popular is it gives players a reason to believe someone put in some effort to ensure they'll have a positive experience with the game. Alternate, narrative and beginner formats are becoming more and more vital to the hobby, but historically players have not been given reason to trust these formats will actually be as fun in practice as they appear in theory. I think that's something that really needs to change.

What I never understood was people saying no one will bring 10 nagashes ext ext. Yet one of many strats I seen in 40k is wraith knight spam at least 5 I think. The rest is just making them pay core tax.

Then with space marines I see their knights being spammed I think it was 3 in one game. Then there is tau spamming their super Giants.

When someone brings 10 Nagashes the others bring 10 bloodthrister a before you know it the game is a battle of the super heavies.

A strong player bases will try and out do each other Hell I alone could bring 7 blood thristers and skarbrand.

Also I have a question. People tell me this all the time but it does not make sense

Player A and B play a game player B barly wins.

Player A: decides to buy a box of sigmarines for his next game and can use them instantly
Player B: who barly won needs to agree to let you use them. If he believes that gives you an advantage he gets a little annoyed unbalanced.

Player A: wins the next game
Player B feels that he lost because player A kept adding units til he won, now he feels cheated and adds new units aswell.

So this either starts a buying race or feelings that they are being cheated. No matter who wins one loses.


Also for those trying a new game think of it this way.

10 guys in shiny gold armour, another with a banner and one riding a dragon monster.
The other gets 10 skaven a hero and a lord.
Seems fair both get 12 , when the skaven loses in the first turn he is either going to quit say how bs unbalanced the game is or switch to another army.

So the skaven player will need to decide do I keep adding more skaven til it seems fair? The the sigmarine player needs to decide hey is it fair for 20 rats to fight my 10 sigmarines with thunder hammers? It is toxic to new players who do not play in a shop and play at home.

Most people I know play from home, where most things can be talked out or quit. But if 2 people pick up the game understand nothing it is toxic. If checkers came with no rules maybe black would decide since he went first he should get an extra piece or red the same thought.

Reasonably, you would agree to a limit and then adhere to the "don't be a jerk" rule. So it would be something more structured than the default "lay out whatever you want" but not as rigid as "build a 2k point army using only these things", but somewhere in between.

Problem is that requires communication and agreement. For example, in the days pre-GHB I saw something supposedly official from GW about "guidelines" that was like a few heroes, up to 12 warscrolls (a bit much IMHO) and the like.

If people are reasonable and not trying to game the system, I don't see an issue with imposing limits like "Let's both bring 2-3 heroes and about 6 warscrolls each" and then tailor it as necessary for a scenario (e.g. maybe Player A's force has ambushed Player B's, so Player B gets to take 8 warscrolls but 3 of them need to be in reserve until Turn 3 as reinforcements).

Basically it requires the players to look at things and say, in your last example, "10 skaven are a lot weaker than 10 guys in gold armor, so you can take 20 instead and two of these giant ratmen too". problem seems to be that people don't want to do that, to make thematic things and do more than just bland pick to X points.

My idea AOS type thing would be how they are doing the 4 Warlords in White Dwarf:

* Start with a Start Collecting box, play some games with just that
* Add a unit (IIRC the most added was 10 Blightkings, so up to two warscrolls)
* Add a monster
* Add a hero

and so on, slowly build up that way, which seems a lot better than trying to fit everything into points that are usually very rough due to not having rules for under-strength units (while without points, you can do under-strengthed at no drawbacks if you want). It honestly does not seem like as much of an anathema as it gets made out to be. Maybe because I'm creative and talkative? I don't know. It doesn't seem hard to do, especially since AOS games take a lot less time than 40k to play.

Wayniac wrote:
Reasonably, you would agree to a limit and then adhere to the "don't be a jerk" rule. So it would be something more structured than the default "lay out whatever you want" but not as rigid as "build a 2k point army using only these things", but somewhere in between.

Problem is that requires communication and agreement. For example, in the days pre-GHB I saw something supposedly official from GW about "guidelines" that was like a few heroes, up to 12 warscrolls (a bit much IMHO) and the like.

If people are reasonable and not trying to game the system, I don't see an issue with imposing limits like "Let's both bring 2-3 heroes and about 6 warscrolls each" and then tailor it as necessary for a scenario (e.g. maybe Player A's force has ambushed Player B's, so Player B gets to take 8 warscrolls but 3 of them need to be in reserve until Turn 3 as reinforcements).

Basically it requires the players to look at things and say, in your last example, "10 skaven are a lot weaker than 10 guys in gold armor, so you can take 20 instead and two of these giant ratmen too". problem seems to be that people don't want to do that, to make thematic things and do more than just bland pick to X points.

My idea AOS type thign would be how they are doing the 4 Warlords in White Dwarf:

* Start with a Start Collecting box, play some games with just that
* Add a unit (IIRC the most added was 10 Blightkings, so up to two warscrolls)
* Add a monster
* Add a hero

and so on, slowly build up that way.

I think it is the human factor tho. With out guidelines people see only ways to make themselves stronger. Like in heroes of the storm the new hero samuro had 68% win rate. A lot of samuro player said I am just good learn to play better. The people who thought he was over powered felt cheated. So it came down to change him or cause a rift, people would rather quit then deal with something they think is cheap. The other would rather quit then change from what's working.

Wayniac wrote:
Reasonably, you would agree to a limit and then adhere to the "don't be a jerk" rule. So it would be something more structured than the default "lay out whatever you want" but not as rigid as "build a 2k point army using only these things", but somewhere in between.

Problem is that requires communication and agreement. For example, in the days pre-GHB I saw something supposedly official from GW about "guidelines" that was like a few heroes, up to 12 warscrolls (a bit much IMHO) and the like.

If people are reasonable and not trying to game the system, I don't see an issue with imposing limits like "Let's both bring 2-3 heroes and about 6 warscrolls each" and then tailor it as necessary for a scenario (e.g. maybe Player A's force has ambushed Player B's, so Player B gets to take 8 warscrolls but 3 of them need to be in reserve until Turn 3 as reinforcements).

Basically it requires the players to look at things and say, in your last example, "10 skaven are a lot weaker than 10 guys in gold armor, so you can take 20 instead and two of these giant ratmen too". problem seems to be that people don't want to do that, to make thematic things and do more than just bland pick to X points.

My idea AOS type thing would be how they are doing the 4 Warlords in White Dwarf:

* Start with a Start Collecting box, play some games with just that
* Add a unit (IIRC the most added was 10 Blightkings, so up to two warscrolls)
* Add a monster
* Add a hero

and so on, slowly build up that way, which seems a lot better than trying to fit everything into points that are usually very rough due to not having rules for under-strength units (while without points, you can do under-strengthed at no drawbacks if you want). It honestly does not seem like as much of an anathema as it gets made out to be. Maybe because I'm creative and talkative? I don't know. It doesn't seem hard to do, especially since AOS games take a lot less time than 40k to play.

Sounds good on paper, but totally breaks down when your community is composed of a handful of people who show up every day, a handful who show up once a week and a handful who show up sporadically. Scheduling some sort of escalating army size becomes a logistical nightmare and all but the core regulars will move on to other games. I've found that most of what White Dwarf suggests only works when you're dealing with a small group of relatively close people who meet on a regular schedule. Rarely practical for store based gaming communities.

Wayniac wrote:
Reasonably, you would agree to a limit and then adhere to the "don't be a jerk" rule. So it would be something more structured than the default "lay out whatever you want" but not as rigid as "build a 2k point army using only these things", but somewhere in between.

Problem is that requires communication and agreement. For example, in the days pre-GHB I saw something supposedly official from GW about "guidelines" that was like a few heroes, up to 12 warscrolls (a bit much IMHO) and the like.

If people are reasonable and not trying to game the system, I don't see an issue with imposing limits like "Let's both bring 2-3 heroes and about 6 warscrolls each" and then tailor it as necessary for a scenario (e.g. maybe Player A's force has ambushed Player B's, so Player B gets to take 8 warscrolls but 3 of them need to be in reserve until Turn 3 as reinforcements).

Basically it requires the players to look at things and say, in your last example, "10 skaven are a lot weaker than 10 guys in gold armor, so you can take 20 instead and two of these giant ratmen too". problem seems to be that people don't want to do that, to make thematic things and do more than just bland pick to X points.

That still leaves having to learn what is balanced and what isn't against what, through what could easily prove to be tedious trial and error though. Some built-in way of measuring a units relative strength will usually make it easier to get into the game, though it unfortunately also invites min-maxing.

Wayniac wrote:

My idea AOS type thing would be how they are doing the 4 Warlords in White Dwarf:

* Start with a Start Collecting box, play some games with just that
* Add a unit (IIRC the most added was 10 Blightkings, so up to two warscrolls)
* Add a monster
* Add a hero

and so on, slowly build up that way, which seems a lot better than trying to fit everything into points that are usually very rough due to not having rules for under-strength units (while without points, you can do under-strengthed at no drawbacks if you want). It honestly does not seem like as much of an anathema as it gets made out to be. Maybe because I'm creative and talkative? I don't know. It doesn't seem hard to do, especially since AOS games take a lot less time than 40k to play.

I'd argue that being understrength is a drawback in itself

Choosing a couple of warscrolls and a couple of heroes can work just fine. I played lots of Open play like that. It's alright for a game and if you just want to throw dice.

It's not as fun as building a list though.

List building is fun and exciting. Putting together a strategy with that list and trying to pull it off on the table is nail biting and rewarding. Matched play has me cooking up lists while I am at work - inspires me to add and collect more models - lets me engage in fun debates around different tactics.

But yeah, open play is alright if you just want to roll some dice.

 Bottle wrote:
Choosing a couple of warscrolls and a couple of heroes can work just fine. I played lots of Open play like that. It's alright for a game and if you just want to throw dice.

It's not as fun as building a list though.

List building is fun and exciting. Putting together a strategy with that list and trying to pull it off on the table is nail biting and rewarding. Matched play has me cooking up lists while I am at work - inspires me to add and collect more models - lets me engage in fun debates around different tactics.

But yeah, open play is alright if you just want to roll some dice.

I don't at all disagree, but I find too often that list building leads to pure min/maxing, because you have a safety net to deflect any complaints (i.e. my list is legal/the rules let me take this/etc.) which you don't necessarily have in open play not because you can't do it, but because it's implied you aren't going to game the system because the army construction rules are extremely basic.

Also I feel list building has its place, but not in every game/all the time. I love building lists in Warmachine, for example, but despise it in 40k (and it's eh in AOS because it's simplified) because it often feels like ending up blatantly min/maxing, almost subconsciously.

It's not like matched play has eliminated the communication aspect either. Note how one of the first questions/statements that comes up in every list building thread is how competitive the list is supposed to be. I know I have said 'sorry but this stuff just isn't good for competitive' as much as I have said 'this list is too much for a casual setting'. I don't think anyone is trying to say that matched play is even close to balanced.

Wayniac wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Choosing a couple of warscrolls and a couple of heroes can work just fine. I played lots of Open play like that. It's alright for a game and if you just want to throw dice.

It's not as fun as building a list though.

List building is fun and exciting. Putting together a strategy with that list and trying to pull it off on the table is nail biting and rewarding. Matched play has me cooking up lists while I am at work - inspires me to add and collect more models - lets me engage in fun debates around different tactics.

But yeah, open play is alright if you just want to roll some dice.

I don't at all disagree, but I find too often that list building leads to pure min/maxing, because you have a safety net to deflect any complaints (i.e. my list is legal/the rules let me take this/etc.) which you don't necessarily have in open play not because you can't do it, but because it's implied you aren't going to game the system because the army construction rules are extremely basic.

Also I feel list building has its place, but not in every game/all the time. I love building lists in Warmachine, for example, but despise it in 40k (and it's eh in AOS because it's simplified) because it often feels like ending up blatantly min/maxing, almost subconsciously.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I have never ever ever played a matched play game and thought about my opponent "you're a jerk for taking that list". Maybe I am lucky in that I have never played pure Skryrefyre or Kunnin Ruk yet - I did play against Beastclaw Raider Monsters recently in a tournament, on table 1, and it was actually the best game of AoS I have ever played.

Sometimes I get smashed, (well more than often at tournaments), but I just see it as a challenge and something to work on. It makes the game exciting to me learning how to use my army better with each game.

I am personally of the mindset that there are no bad units in AoS (well, except maybe Saurus Knights ) but only units that are good and bad at different things. Still it is very possible to take a bad combination of units in AoS, but that's the fun in generalship and army building in my opinion. Plus, building a bad combination of units is going to handicap you in Matched or Open play both because it's due to the game mechanics rather than points or model count so however you choose to set up the game you are going to be at a disadvantage unless you outright tell your opponent that your army is weaker than the sum of its parts - but then if they tone back their own list in response to that and you beat them, isn't that going to be the most hollow victory you've ever tasted? :-)

Matched Play is a good tool to write a list before going at your shop/club/tournament if you don't know against who you'll be playing. It gives a common basis from the start, certainly not perfect, sure, but useful when you don't know your opponent.

Open Play works best with your friends and gaming circle...and when you don't mind talking with people before playing or when you aren't hurried by a specific time schedule. It actually doesn't need a GM, just to have people agreeing with each other (and yes, it happens even with strangers). The mechanic is different and that is mostly why it upsets people used with so many years to play with points. But the mechanic does work.

Narrative Play (funny it is often forgotten!) is certainly the one that matched the most GW's old way to play games, at that time when they still wrote scenarios for roleplaying games or specific battles with specific armies. It asks for preparation (you can improvise those, but you can do much more wonderful things when you take time to get those ready) but, to me, that's the play that I remember the most. Maybe because they are there to tell a specific story and ask you to involve something from yourself (time, painting specific models, and so on), thus when the reward finally comes and you enjoy these games, it is a really sweet memory.

No one is better than the other. GW's wise move was giving us choice. And choice we have. Trying to restrict these choices in an artificial way, one way or the other, is to me the really wrong move. From some players unable to accept people can have fun in another way than theirs.

Wayniac wrote:

I don't at all disagree, but I find too often that list building leads to pure min/maxing, because you have a safety net to deflect any complaints (i.e. my list is legal/the rules let me take this/etc.) which you don't necessarily have in open play not because you can't do it, but because it's implied you aren't going to game the system because the army construction rules are extremely basic.

Also I feel list building has its place, but not in every game/all the time. I love building lists in Warmachine, for example, but despise it in 40k (and it's eh in AOS because it's simplified) because it often feels like ending up blatantly min/maxing, almost subconsciously.

Min/Maxing is just a byproduct of doing anything on a predefined budget. It's no different than ringing up $11.50 at the market when all you've got is a ten in your pocket. Realistically its a bit worse, since you're not getting any change if you just put something back. The less granular the system, the easier it is to swap things around, but the more the designer needs to create diverse options rather than rely on points to make something slightly less powerful, but ultimately redundant worthwhile. The more granular a system gets, the more players will have to take out something they want to play because it leaves them with an awkward remainder that can only be filled with a different pairing of units. X-Wing, particularly early on, its an example of a game with frustrating build requirements where you're essentially trying to find 3 models with different double digit point values that somehow add up to 100.

 Bottle wrote:
I am personally of the mindset that there are no bad units in AoS (well, except maybe Saurus Knights ) but only units that are good and bad at different things.

First off I agree, with the exception of sabertusks which are bad. The listbuilding aspect you talked about, units in combination, is a very important factor. However, this issue is not so much in bad units/combinations but game-breakingly good ones. Skeleton chariots are heads-and-shoulders better than almost any other battleline, frostlord stonehorns beat the crap out of most things of equivalent cost, etc. And such things are compounded by combos that can make them even worse. Because of this, its very easy to find that an opponent's army may simply not be a reasonable matchup for yours--asking them to tone it back isn't about making victory easy/hollow but about making the game about skilled generalship rather than a one-sided affair. Obviously tournaments are a different beast though.

I can see that for sure, but I think that the overall balance of AoS is good enough that I don't mind being at a disadvantage from time to time as I know it swings the other way at times too.

Maybe I still need to play a total non-game to make me all jaded haha

I guess we are going a little off track. I think I wanted to say that from my experience the meta of AoS is healthy enough that min/maxing doesn't mean half your units choices are useless. Far from it - most things can be incorporated into an effective build (maybe not tournament winning, but tournament competing at least). Obviously if you want to take an army of all chaff you're not going to win many games, but a bit of chaff certainly has its place alongside your choppy and your tanky units.

Wayniac wrote:
What, exactly, is wrong with discussion?

There's nothing wrong with discussion. There's something wrong with balance negotiations. That kind of discussion adds nothing to the game experience, it just wastes time I could be spending on chatting about the new Star Wars movie or trading painting tricks or whatever. Nothing of value would be lost if GW balanced the game properly in the first place.

But why does that need to bleed into everything else?

Because every form of gaming is better when the game is balanced and players can quickly agree on the basic format of the game, build their army lists, and have an enjoyable game. Nothing at all is gained, under any circumstances, by removing balance.

The biggest downside for me for Matched Play is that it goes back to the "Come back when you have a 2000 point army" approach, which AOS was meant to get away from (by encouraging you to buy a new unit for your next game and being able to field it immediately), which I've always found to be a problem when the "community" is unwilling to play lower points or accommodate new players; no newbie wants to be told they can't play their first game until they spend a few hundred dollars on an army.

This has nothing to do with matched play. The people who only want to play 2000 point games are going to continue doing that in the absence of points. They like big games and will be reluctant to play anything with fewer than that many models, whether or not those models are quantified by point costs. Removing points doesn't change the financial burden at all, you still have to spend hundreds of dollars to have a chance of winning against the guy who insists on bringing 200 models every game.

I think GW had the right idea with wanting to get away from points, just they grossly underestimated the reaction of the wannabe tryhards who feel points mean things are fair.

And this is what I mean about the community being a toxic mess. It's clear that "casual at all costs" players don't hate points because they're bad for the game, they hate points because removing points is a symbolic statement to people they don't like about how they aren't welcome in the community anymore. The more you talk about "wannabe tryhards" the more you demonstrate that your primary goal is establishing your clique and looking down on everyone else.

Why are some people acting like points and narrative play are separate entities?

There's no such thing as narrative play unless the players make it narrative and there's nothing inherent in a game having a points system which prevents narratives from being constructed.

For example, lets say I designed a scenario where players had to activate devices scattered around the map in order to open a tomb in the centre which holds a relic of unimaginable power. This could be the final game of a campaign in which the players have fought their way from all corners of the country, trying to stall their opponents at each step, in order to reach this battle.

Obviously this game will be most fun if each player has an equal chance of winning. From a narrative standpoint it would be rubbish and a huge anti-climax if the campaign ended with one player completely crushing all the others due to having a much more powerful army. So we obviously want the players forces to be equally balanced against each other in order to ensure that this battle goes right down to the wire in a nail-biting conclusion. A well designed points system makes that a lot easier to accomplish, especially when it is involving more than two players at once.

Just wanted to say excellent posts / points Bottle! And things don't have to be set, that's why there are options . But as Peregrine points out, it never helps to paint folks who want to play differently in such a negative light - there's room for several styles of play, and that's one of the biggest appeals of the game, I think!