Generals Handbook = 1 style of play?

[pez5767]

Hey All!

Now that the General's Handbook has been out for 6+ months, I'm curious if anyone is playing the Narrative Style, Paths to Glory, Open, or anything other than matched/points/tournament-prep play? 

I know when the book released a lot of people (myself included) were worried that once the GH dropped,  points-based match play would be the only style of play getting used.  Certainly, from scanning the forums here, it looks like those fears have come to fruition in terms of all AoS games being conceptually prep for tournaments. Lots of discussion of "optimal choices" or units being "too expensive" to use. Is anyone having a different experience in their local area?  

It already looks like 2000pts has become the default points total for match/tournament play. Any thoughts or ideas on why that number has become the total? It seems awfully high to me, but then I'm just a silly garage gamer.

Please help me to see the light.

Looking forward to people's feedback on this issue.

-Pez5767

[Immersturm]

Everything involving a winner and a loser tends to comeptitiveness sooner or later. The only question one should ask himself is whether one is taking it too far. While matched play is the the most dominant way to play, it does not mean fluff games are not present. But there are those that focus only on winning, but that is the fault of the player, not the book itself.

[Mohojoe]

There is a plethora of good narrative stuff going on and a hell of a lot of it is on the forums if you dig through. 

There will be a narrative subforum being added in the next few weeks I believe so that may make it easier to find for you. If you tune into Warhammer Live on Twitch you can watch live narrative games at 3pm GMT

Realms at War is a narrative event with a big following. @HobbyHammer has an event running on the forum where you can run a narrative warband using the path to glory rullings and earn points for actions such as painting and matches.

2000 points seems to be a nice number for tournament play as it allows you to have enough variety for assorted builds to be useful and forcing you to take 3 battlelines keeps you having an army that looks like an army. I have seen smaller point tournaments but they do not seem as popular.

In regards to tournament play casting a shadow over narrative, perhaps it does. However (To me at least) It is more fun to watch and listen to. Podcasts and livestreams about tournaments always grab my attention as its interesting to me to hear about people with a grand mastery of the game and its mechanics. I like following peoples projects and then feeling like I have some investment in how they do competitively, @Chris Tomlin and his Ironjawz, @Terry Pike and his Mixed chaos and @Ben with his Legion of Azgorh. Its interesting to me to see these projects grow and then see them compete against other great armies in a fair setting. 

It may be due to my obsessive nature but when I find something I like (Age of Sigmar for example) I have to learn everything about it. With it being so relatively new, finding out all of the lore isn't as gargantuan a task as learning everything about units, tactics and special rules. Its easier to grab that information through tournament play than just reading I feel. 

Also as a player who seems to be miles away from everyone else, the only time I can guarantee myself a number of games is by attending tournaments. 

As a final thought, it appears to me that Narrative play is great for those playing it and running the campaigns, however they just dont hold much weight with me when it comes to discussing them. I am sure plenty of people play and enjoy narrative without it being spoken about, however people naturally want to questions tournament play on forums to better their playing ability and the list they take.

[Kramer]

This of course will be my personal experience, but I almost solely play with points because it gives me a tool to set up games somewhat balanced. Within my friendgroup we play campaigns. One person sets it up, usually me, and we use that as context for our games. It's about the narrative until the battle starts. Then our competitive side comes up. Before we lacked the in depth knowledge of the different armies to field somewhat balanced armies. Making it a tough pill to swallow if a loss had consequences for the campaign. 

That all being said: we are preparing a path to glory (dwarfs vs. Skaven so it takes a bit of creativity to set it up). and while we use points the moment somebody says: i'm 20 points, or even 50, over because I wanted to include my newly painted model. That's always good. 

My fear, which I do see in most tournament/power lists discussions is the assumption that the points are fair. They are not and because GW wants a huge universe the amount of units/skills/matchups mean it will never be totally balanced. I think a lot of the frustration (Kunnin rukk is OP, GW totally nerved my unit, love the model but will never include it) comes from that situation. But hey, that's just my experience. 

[Soulsmith]

I find the points a good guideline to then play more fluffy battleplans and games. My most recent used the first from the stormcasts book, which was written without points. Points made it fairer, in what is ultimately an unfair battleplan.

[Arkiham]

There is the narrative on twitch, and myself and friends will likely start to begin a narrative campaign now my new tzeentch stuff is released, I've been wiating to do a spawn and mutation focused list for so long, but we plan on using the point structure to make it more balanced.

I've been waiting for a new bunch of models and paint scheme so I can paint everything the same rather than have to repaint or repurchase some models

[Tullbeard]

Have many people been using the Triumph and Treachery rules? I'm a big fan of multiplayer games but I haven't seen many people run them yet. 

From my experience at my local store, there does seem to be a very strong dogma that Matched play 1v1 is the way to go and it can take a good deal of effort to get a multiplayer game going (which in my opinion are extremely fun - maybe I'm just the odd one out!)

There is a Triumph and Treachery event at Warhammer World in March; I'll be interested to see how many people attend. I wonder what the "regular Tournament players" (excuse the random name, didn't know how best to word it) will think of an event like this: a) a fresh event with a new perspective; or b) not a 2k 1v1 so not worth the time (I'm deliberately being overly absolute here, I realise, but just expressing a point).

 

 

[Cordova]

As I'm sure you're aware, when AOS landed one of the most repeated/strident criticism I heard was how it was too difficult to pick two balanced armies - it takes a fair amount of experience with and knowledge of the game in order to work out what's balanced, and when it's a new game, that's a problem.  Having the game's designers give us a manner of balancing the games (points, army construction restrictions) makes that easier - in theory, working out whether 2 armies are balanced using the Matched Play restrictions should be a "brain off" task, which is normally a good thing.

Having said that ... I pick my armies using the Matched Play restrictions (they are a useful guide, if only to stop me making massive armies...), however, they are chosen according to the background and which models I like.  If someone comes up with an interesting idea for a game, I'm all for that...

 

[b1ackni9htgaming]

If you enjoy structured games you need a game that has some semblance of structure. The General's Handbook provided that.

Now if you don't like points, playing pick-up games with random people, or going to competitive tournaments. Keep on doing what you were doing before the General's Handbook came out! Play against your friends the way that you want to play! Now, if you're disappointed because other people in your area want to play with point...that just means that those people enjoy that mode of play rather than the narrative/open play that you enjoyed. That's not bad, nor is it wrong. It's just how they enjoyed the game. 

Unfortunately, for those of us that like games with points, we need supplements like the General's Handbook to enjoy the game. 

 

[Kramer]

28 minutes ago, Tullbeard said:

Have many people been using the Triumph and Treachery rules? I'm a big fan of multiplayer games but I haven't seen many people run them yet. 

From my experience at my local store, there does seem to be a very strong dogma that Matched play 1v1 is the way to go and it can take a good deal of effort to get a multiplayer game going (which in my opinion are extremely fun - maybe I'm just the odd one out!)

There is a Triumph and Treachery event at Warhammer World in March; I'll be interested to see how many people attend. I wonder what the "regular Tournament players" (excuse the random name, didn't know how best to word it) will think of an event like this: a) a fresh event with a new perspective; or b) not a 2k 1v1 so not worth the time (I'm deliberately being overly absolute here, I realise, but just expressing a point).

 

 

4 player is amazing but we. Ever got a three player game to work so we now just run a two against one if we end up with three players. But a four player free for all is amazing fun. Although my advice is to play with people that can turn the competitiveness a bit down. Because the most fun is had in backstabbing and player interaction. Not strategical choices and winning

[nuttyknatty]

I'm not sure that these forums are the best way to gauge how AoS is being played with regard to Open/Narrative/Matched.

The idea of a forum is that like minded individuals who share an interest come together and discuss stuff. Matched play has a clearer focus than the other ways of playing and is therefore something that's a little easier to get a larger number of people talking about. Therefore it's much more common to see threads with Matched discussions happening.

Open play by definition is much more varied. In fact, the possibilities are endless! So, it's unlikely that a post about a homespun Battleplan involving a Ghorgon fighting alongside some Stormcast allies versus a Destruction and Death force, whilst interesting and no doubt fun to play, is not going to get as much traffic as say, a discussion on what the most valuable Battleline unit in an Order army is in Matched Play. The answer to that question in Narrative and Open is "anything and everything", you can't really have a 'discussion' about it. Whereas in Matched Play, there will certainly be a few experienced Generals who could put together a good argument for their answer.

So, certainly Matched does seem to dominate these forums, but I think that's understandable. But, that being a reflection of how AoS is being played worldwide? Impossible to answer probably.

 

 

[KHHaunts]

From my personal experience all the styles of play have been used. Some have been used more than others ill admit but that was always going to be the case.

The majority of games i play at the shop tend to be a middle ground. We use points and allegiance abilities etc but we dont stay strict on list building. This comes down to playing alot of strangers and needing a quick way to play a fair game.

But i certainly dont think the fear that competitive play has taken over.

 

However consider this.

Competitive play is inherently a more serious affair because its well . . . competitive, There are also alot more elements to the prep than other styles of play and defining the correct rules is a lot more important.

As a result you just naturally find more posts about individual elements that people need to know.

competitive players just have more to say in my opinion

Narrative and open play etc are alot more generalized.

You could have one post to discuss a vast array of narrative battleplans but a whole topic just for one rule query.

Off the top of my head i cant actually think of that many topics about Narrative play other than like "What narratives are good?"

[N_Watson]

Was there much talk on the forums before the GH about open/narrative games? From what I remember, people playing one form of comp or another where the main people discussing strategy. 

At the end of the day, there is more to discuss on competitive, points best games. I still play and enjoy narrative, but I would only play these types of games with friends. Not something I would discuss at length on the forums. 

[BaldoBeardo]

Most people will always tend towards points because that creates the illusion of a mental showdown.
The starting conditions are "fair", the inference there being the winner is determined on merit alone.
It provides the opportunity for alpha bragging rights, traditionally something quite hard to come by on the venn diagram for wargamers.
But hey, tallest midget is still tallest midget, eh?

Matched play may well be where the game shines, but you only have to read this forum and others to see that it's also at its' ugliest.

A plague on both your houses, etc. etc.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[N_Watson]

Most people will be drawn to points as it has been a staple in the genre for a long time. List building is as much a hobby as painting and modelling for some. Deciding on an army list at the table because you don't know what force your opponent will be bringing doesn't offer much in the way of list design. 

Points allow you to agree a benchmark with a stranger prior to your game. Great for the tournament scene and pick up games at a club/store. 

Can you imagine your average war game nerd discussing with another war game nerd what they think will create a balanced game before setting up. I can't imagine anything worse. 

[Oppenheimer]

4 hours ago, Tullbeard said:

Have many people been using the Triumph and Treachery rules? I'm a big fan of multiplayer games but I haven't seen many people run them yet. 

From my experience at my local store, there does seem to be a very strong dogma that Matched play 1v1 is the way to go and it can take a good deal of effort to get a multiplayer game going (which in my opinion are extremely fun - maybe I'm just the odd one out!)

There is a Triumph and Treachery event at Warhammer World in March; I'll be interested to see how many people attend. I wonder what the "regular Tournament players" (excuse the random name, didn't know how best to word it) will think of an event like this: a) a fresh event with a new perspective; or b) not a 2k 1v1 so not worth the time (I'm deliberately being overly absolute here, I realise, but just expressing a point).

 

 

I have been playing T&T. Even using the 8e box with revised rules.

 

Also been playing Narrative lots. It's my favourite way to play. Converted an old 6e campaign Circle of Blood into AoS scenarios.

[pez5767]

4 hours ago, The Nameless One said:

The idea of a forum is that like minded individuals who share an interest come together and discuss stuff. Matched play has a clearer focus than the other ways of playing and is therefore something that's a little easier to get a larger number of people talking about. Therefore it's much more common to see threads with Matched discussions happening.

...

So, certainly Matched does seem to dominate these forums, but I think that's understandable. But, that being a reflection of how AoS is being played worldwide? Impossible to answer probably.

A great point there, Nameless One.  I'd like to see a little more variety in the discussion, but perhaps that will have to stay among my friends and I.  I do recall people saying that the matched play community represented a very vocal minority of gamers, perhaps the points you made above are a representation of why?

3 hours ago, KHHaunts said:

The majority of games i play at the shop tend to be a middle ground. We use points and allegiance abilities etc but we dont stay strict on list building. This comes down to playing alot of strangers and needing a quick way to play a fair game.

But i certainly dont think the fear that competitive play has taken over.

...

Competitive play is inherently a more serious affair because its well . . . competitive, There are also alot more elements to the prep than other styles of play and defining the correct rules is a lot more important.

...

Narrative and open play etc are alot more generalized.

...

Again, some good points here. Perhaps it is simply a case of a minimum of discussion online as opposed to a minimum of actual play.  However, when I go to my local shop, or go the major forums, or go on my facebook or youtube feed, all I see is matched play (admittedly, I haven't checked out the Twitch channel). It does make it hard to see anything other than matched play occurring in the AoS community.  

[Sleboda]

17 hours ago, Cordova said:

when AOS landed one of the most repeated/strident criticism I heard was how it was too difficult to pick two balanced armies

To put it in another context, when the pizza company introduced their new meatless pizza, people complained that they couldn't taste the sausage in it. 

 

Then the pizza company said that people could get sausage on it if they wanted, and all the local pizza stores stopped stocking any pizzas worth no meat because meat eaters beat up the vegetarians until they stopped trying to order the meatless pizza.

Now nobody can get a meatless pizza anymore even though the pizza company still says it's available for order as a direct delivery option.

[mmimzie]

@pez5767 as i said when you( or maybe it was someone else, just remembering the invader zim pic, nice btw) posted this concern originally, and every once a month when someone else brings it up. There is a whole barrage of reasons why matched play or points will be talked about more than anything else.

1. Points are not mutually exclusive to Narrative or even open play.  If I want to make a narrative game where one side is over powering the other, i can use points to tell the out numbering player to bring a 2k list, and the under strength player to bring 500-1k points. If i want a fairly even strength game we can both aim for around 2k points. if its exactly then i wont care because it's open/narrative. I can take or leave some or all of the rules.

2. Matched play is common ground. If i want to talk about about a game or event even if we didn't use points, i could bring up points to show how the armies are compared, or express how a unit.

 

3. Points simply have a lot to talk about. Even if most people played open or narrative play you could see 10-20 pages about any given battle report or game some one wanted to show. Balancing the strengths of units and the various tactics. With out points this all kind of meaningless as you simply have no metric. If you go over a game there not much to besaid stuff killed stuff, and someone won or lost. You can't really compare how the units did as thier is no metric, or no common goal. It's like trying to describe to some one how cold it is outside with out a thermometer out side of the water being frozen or liquid and people sweating or not you have no way to compare it, and thus the conversation kind of stops mattering as thier is no point of reference or common ground. 

 

Here is a link to the last one. Lots of thoughts there.
 

Anyway i think there are like 5 of these post now??? I could be wrong, but i've no interest in beating a dead horse. Maybe we could just put up a stick for people to vent in or drop this line of talk all together?? Doesn't seem to ever end in fruitful conversations IMHO.

[Kramer]

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

To put it in another context, when the pizza company introduced their new meatless pizza, people complained that they couldn't taste the sausage in it. 

 

naw, this analogy doesn't work. The feeling is more that people have to order pizza in pairs and because most people want sausage on their pizza. I keep ending up ordering pizza with meat because I do want to eat... But if I say I want vegetarian pizza, everybody goes: 'Okay that fine, but I'm going to order with Steve because we both like sausage. 
Now I'm standing their frantically looking for someone to order a vegetarian pizza with. 

The vegetarian option is still their and the store still offers it but as you are depended on another player to play the game. It gets harder to find somebody to play open with. 

Now that being said I like matched and even when playing narrative I use points to somewhat balance the forces. But your analogy was very much skeved to your argument

[Carnelian]

13 hours ago, Soulsmith said:

I find the points a good guideline to then play more fluffy battleplans and games. My most recent used the first from the stormcasts book, which was written without points. Points made it fairer, in what is ultimately an unfair battleplan.

I play narrative or triumph and treachery more than matched play - but we often use the points to help us understand he relative size of the forces (E. G. Making one army twice as big as the other)

[Squirrelmaster]

I mostly play random pick-up games against strangers, or friends I don't see/play against very often, so I don't really know their armies. There tends to be a limit on how much time we have for a game, so I don't want to spend forever trying to figure out what is "balanced". I don't like playing completely unbalanced, one-sided games.

If not for the GH, I would not being playing AoS at all. I'd already pretty much given up on it. With the GH, I'll play matched or maybe points-only play, but that's it.

You want to play a forgeworld model that doesn't have points? Sure, I can skim over the warscroll and we can agree an appropriate points cost — if it's just one model that's not a problem. Trying to do that for entire armies, though? I just don't have time for, or interest in, doing that.

Frankly, if I was playing the sort of games GW seems to think AoS is for, I wouldn't bother using AoS at all — I'd be making up my own homebrew rules. I feel like the non-points of AoS are half-way doing that already.

[Soulsmith]

58 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

I mostly play random pick-up games against strangers, or friends I don't see/play against very often, so I don't really know their armies. There tends to be a limit on how much time we have for a game, so I don't want to spend forever trying to figure out what is "balanced". I don't like playing completely unbalanced, one-sided games.

Pretty much this. Despite not having many games under my belt, I am only in the process of establishing a gaming network. So for now points works because I play against people I don't know. My last one was essentially narrative but using points as a guideline. I am definitely interested in playing narrative more as it was great fun, but I think it's important to keep points in mind as they roughly equate to how strong a unit is (I know some don't equal their points, e.g Gordrakk).

In terms of what is discussed here, outside of homebrew campaigns etc, there will simply be more to talk about competitively. Strategy doesn't have to equal matched though. Just because I am playing narratively and using a non-comp list doesn't mean I am not considering what people have discussed here, such as pile-in mechanics.

[Chickenbits]

2k is the most common because it's the most fair from an army structure perspective.

 

Stormcast works well regardless of points, since they aren't relying on artillery and behemoths, like say Pestilens, who really suffer in 1500 pts games. 

 

I really hope GH2 adds a level between 1k and 2k, with 3 behemoths and 3 artillery.

[N_Watson]

6 minutes ago, Chickenbits said:

2k is the most common because it's the most fair from an army structure perspective.

 

Stormcast works well regardless of points, since they aren't relying on artillery and behemoths, like say Pestilens, who really suffer in 1500 pts games. 

 

I really hope GH2 adds a level between 1k and 2k, with 3 behemoths and 3 artillery.

1.5k is 3 battle line, 6 heroes 4 artillery and 4 behemoth. 

The tables in the GH are up to 1000 and up to 2000 etc. 

It doesn't list a minimum points for battlehost, just a maximum. Maximum for vanguard is 1000, so any higher, you play with battlehost rules until you exceed 2k, then it is warhost.