The Hobby and the Handbook

[Sleboda]

Like so many others, I am very excited about the General's Handbook. I was in the local shop yesterday to get a look at it in person and it seems great.

While there, I picked up a box of Stormfiends because I really wanted to put some together and paint them.  I also plan to game with them in all the new formats and battleplans.

 

It hit me, though, that there is a potential downside to the new points system.  Prior to it,  I would have just put the guys together based on "This will look cool.  I want them this way."  Now it is highly likely that I will put them together with options that I might not want just based on point values and battlefield effectiveness.

That seems like a loss from the non-points system.

Anyone else getting this same bit o' bummer?

 

-Joe

[Somnicide]

Yep.

[daedalus81]

Points are relatively level across the board so the only loss is packing 5 dragons onto a table.  I will shed no tears.

I will field stormfiends, because they look cool and they fill a roll I need.

[polarbear]

I'm more happy for the game to continually evolve than anything, but I do have some downsides. I think battleline units specifically are too restrictive and too much of a pull back to the old days. I also don't like that unit sizes optimally need to be fixed. I have 30+ "battleline" models in all of my armies, but don't want to have to put them in units of 10 each, for example.

[WoollyMammoth]

Stormfiends are 300 points regardless of how you model them, so I don't see your point. You may be building an army with a lot of troops and so you want to keep stormfiends back and so, you would want to make them ratling cannons for gaming purposes, however you think they would look cooler with doomfists - well this is nothing new with the generals handbook or warhammer in general. I do complex magnetizing so that I can get around this issue. 

What the points are doing is charging you more for the obvious "best" weapon option, and this is amazing. For example Retributors are more expensive than Protectors or Decimators. This is amazing and actually gives you a choice - If you think Protectors are the coolest - well now youre even saving points. 

With the nicely balanced point system you can really take whatever you want, but some lists are always going to be stronger than others. If you were taking a "weak" list before, now you should be able to take a lot more than you had before and if you were taking a really strong list, you likely have to make some sacrifices. 

You have to make a decision based on what you think is cool, what is affordable and what will be effective. This is the point of the matched play. If that bothers you and you just want to take whatever you like and not worry about it, that is what open play is for.

[rokapoke]

I think some purchases may be changed due to point considerations (particularly for people who expect their play groups to focus almost exclusively on points), but I don't think that will be the norm. As @WoollyMammoth states, for the most part the points value doesn't change with armaments -- and when it does, it's generally not going to be the difference between 200 points and 500 points (except for things like generals, like the Maw Crusha options). 

I actually have been thinking that I may want to get more Liberators for my Stormcast army. I have twenty due to having two starter sets, but I might end up buying more (now that Battleline units are required for matched play), where I wouldn't have without points. So yes, it can discourage some purchases, but it can also potentially encourage other purchases.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

There's no real difference between this and SCGT points. No one complained then so why worry now?

[daedalus81]

33 minutes ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

There's no real difference between this and SCGT points. No one complained then so why worry now?

The involvement of GW complicates it for some.

[AdHocGames]

Points dont affect equipment options, and they are optional. If you're enjoying the way you currently play, theres no need to use them.

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Stormfiends are 300 points regardless of how you model them, so I don't see your point. 

 

[Sleboda]

===> Ah. I don't have the points listings yet (no book owned, just had a glance), so was not aware of that.

That said, this only mitigates one of my concerns.  Before I go on, I really should say that I am all for there being a points system option.  I am a fan of balance, for tournaments or not, and points at least make me feel like there is a balance system keeping things close-ish if I want to play that way.

However, after an initial period of hesitation, I embraced the AoS Way to Play - put whatever cool looking models I want on the table.  Players were not building "lists" or the like. They were painting cool looking models and putting them on the table for fun.  It was very pure and smiley.

Now that the element of competition is brought back in on a "serious" level (it's really sorta an auto part of things when you talk matched play, point systems, tournaments, and so on), I will be putting new models together in the most advantageous configuration to support a purpose-driven competitive Army List.  Like the old days.  Bone Giant never saw the table for me in Warhammer.  They were an auto include for me in AoS because mine are all converted and I like to see them smashing around the table, win or lose.

I get that I can still play all three ways, but since I won't be buying 18 Stormfiends just to get a group or three for Matched Play and a group or three for Open Play (or whatever it is called), the 3 to 9 models I buy will be assembled with Match Play in mind and when I play Open Play, I will softly lament not having what I believe is the coolest/funnest stuff on the table.

In other words, bringing back the Tournament Gamer in me is going to sort of kill of The Little Kid Gamer I had become in AoS previously, and I will miss that Kid.

[WoollyMammoth]

Oh ya - stormfiends are awesome no matter how you kit them out, but what you choose is going to heavily affect their game play. I magnetized just a couple to switch around options. Stormfiends are also battleline if you choose only skyre, which is most of the good stuff anyway so that's a really cool option if you have 9 (3 units of 3). more than 9 is going to be crazy unless you are playing like a 6000 point game.  

The new handbook is a good balance. There's no more "do this or you will likely lose" like 8th or 40k. You can still make whatever you like within reasonable restrictions. The only annoyance you might have is if you want to do a mixed skaven force and you are stuck with basically 60 clanrats in order to participate in matched play. So if you want to do skyre and get around that you can't field a verminlord, thanquol, Abomb, etc. Matched play is specifically for people who enjoy list-building, if that's not for you then you can find others who agree and play open or the awesome campaign stuff.

[mmimzie]

I see it this way. aka This is why i personally need points.

For me with no points. Playing feels kind of pointless... (mmmm puns...). I can enjoy it for the odd ball game here in that but i'd never make a large force. It felt icky playing games where i was crushing my opponent and i was worried i brought too much or whatever, and visa versa. 

I don't think points bring balance, but they do bring a common ground. They translate the terms you want to play at in an understandable level.  I means that i know if i play a game against you, bob, jane, jill, etc we are all on the same playing field. Trying to balance my list with out points.... everyone would look at wounds. Right now with points i can take 200 wounds of zombies + a a few other big models  vs 100 wounds of storm cast, and have a reasonably fair game of it. 

If the games not balanced??? Then i can blame the points, i can ignore some units know they are under/over costed depending on what i'm playing for. With out points it gets difficult.... See i'm a tourny savy player. i don't really make my list to kill. I don't always pick the units that are best in the game or whatever; but i usually find one unit to be the center of my army, and built the whole list around them. Right now i've picked zombie and everyone else just helps my zombies shine. 

So if i play against your average player. I'd probably win more often than not. SO with out points i'm balancing my list to the average player vs my above average play level. So, when i go against a tourney player who balances against other tourny players. I'll mess up and bring an under powered list. I won't really find this out until playing someone for 2 or 3 hours depending on game size. At which point i'll be sad i pretty much wasted time fighting an uphill fight. I then have to play this game against these level opponents many times before i know where balance is against them. Then when i go back to my local store i'll over balance as i get back to that base line. So i'd need a bevy of games to finally balance the scales. Where as with points the scales are set. Even if slanted slightly one way or another; i know what i've got to work with.

[RossMHoward]

13 hours ago, daedalus81 said:

The involvement of GW complicates it for some.

Exactly my worry. Under SCGT Russ has done an amazing job of tweaking the scoring for units in relation to how they perform in the community.

Mo and his collaborators on Clash have also done an equally good job. But the main thing is that something that might be undercosted at release will be adjusted a few months later. The meta is in a much more dynamic place than it has ever been under any other edition of Warhammer. Once the ink is dry on the handbook, how often are points going to be updated? And if at all, based on what criteria will they be adjusted? 

It's great that GW have responded to peoples criticisms about points and added that. As well as command traits and allegiance bonuses to make mono faction armies a lot more appealing too. It's a great selling point for the newcomers. But for those of us who've been playing since launch or since the comp systems have been launched it's kinda hard not to be nervous about giving back the control to GW. 

 

[Durant]

I love the free composition rules in AoS, as i buy models just for the looks not for their rules.

I just hope that some event will still stick to the non-battleline ways. Any way one thing AoS changed is that we know that it is possible to play with diferent styles and rules.

I hope for the best

[Cador]

hi,

 

i think they priced the book so low because they want to release a new version every year.

 

this way they can include all the new models and they can balnace the whole thing again.

[daedalus81]

4 hours ago, Cador said:

hi,

 

i think they priced the book so low because they want to release a new version every year.

 

this way they can include all the new models and they can balnace the whole thing again.

Maybe, but I think the price is rather just a loss-leader to get people interested again.  We have pretty reliable info that points are going to the app.  The frequency of updates to points is still a matter of contention.

[polarbear]

As exciting as the handbook is, I'm going to wait to see what the app offers on the subject. I've found myself regretting buying the grand alliance books as they rather immediately go out of date.

[SuperHappyTime]

It's different from 8th, where we picked units based on their effectiveness as hammers, anvils, shooting, artillery, or heavy/light cavalry, etc.

Not only can we pick something "because it's cool", but we aren't saying "well, that means I have to drop a hammer, and then my army fights differently".

If you mean things like putting in some massive model for some 10 man basic unit made for a fair game, you're a gigantic ass. But for the most part, trading a unit for a unit is a pretty equal transaction.