The Mindset: Matched VS Open

[WoollyMammoth]

The GH introduces 3 ways of play, but the foundation of the game is now built on whether or not you choose to use their new point system. Most of us are divided into one of two opinions:

A. The points are bad & going to cause problems. The game is at its best when you put down whatever you want and manually balance with your opponent. The values are arbitrary and are only going to lead to 'net lists', powergamers and an overall cap on fun.

B. The points are awesome & finally make AoS playable. They are very well done and create an easy way to create a 'balanced game' which was nearly impossible before. Points take AoS to the next level and finally fill in the missing pieces that were keeping AoS from being a good game.

First lets talk about group A. Many people fall into this category. Jervis Johnson who is likely the head of AoS design is very obviously in this category. In the latest Heelanhammer podcast (ep 155) there is a lengthy discussion of why open play is good and why matched play can be very bad.

• A Positives: Most of these people have been playing AoS from launch. They feel the lack of points brings freedom. Many people who would have never been interested in Warhammer Fantasy are interested for the first time. Many players who have been away from Warhammer for a long time find themselves pulled back into it. Now you can just buy any models you want, put them down and just have fun. You can finally buy that model you always wanted but could never justify in a game. This makes the 'fluffy' list player who got beaten down time and again by the power-gamers finally have their day - just put down more models than your opponent in the spirit of fairness to combat an opponents power list. Open play can be better as a painter and modeler - you don't have to spend time making things you don't want to paint.
   
• A Negatives: Open play tends to be very exclusive. With such freedom, you simply can't trust people to play the way that you would like to play. Sure, its easy to put down models and eye it out when you are playing with someone you completely trust. You either have to trust that your opponent is being fair, or have such a vast knowledge of how every unit works in AoS that you can tell what is going to be more balanced.
  
  When AoS came out, there were many people talking about things such as showing up at GW with 6 Hellpit Abominations to blow out a game to 'prove how broken AoS is'. To be fair, I think most of us have a fear of these 'rude powergamer' types more than people actually see them - there are many reports of groups embracing open play and everything has been fine. 
  
  Unfortunately there is a fine line - in almost all cases, even if playing with a close friend, you may disagree on the value of a model. You might say that 6 Stormfiends are equal to a Ghorgon. If your opponent is really good with the Ghorgon and always doing very nasty things with it, this makes sense. Most people, especially those experienced with these units would say that these two units are nowhere near equal, but people think what they think. In 8th ed I often bumped heads over my Terrorgheist - I felt it was balanced as its the only shooting in my army and can get easily taken down by any shooting, but opponents often thought its ability was broken and unfair. There is simply no way to properly value units, so this can become a point of contention even among good-natured friends.
  
  Nothing leads to more contention or frustration than the open summoning. People are night and day on this topic and therefore summoning is only going to be possible in a game where both players feel the same way. Unfortunately if you are on the side that does not like summoning, your opponent may strongly disagree. This point has been probably the biggest problem where many people who don't like the idea of summoning simply dismiss AoS altogether and have long since quit the hobby.
  
  Lastly, Open play tends to favor larger models and often leads to a monster-mash kind of game play. There's nothing wrong with this, but some people simply prefer the battlefield to be filled with rank troops rather than large models.
   
• A Summary: Open play can be very fun and fulfilling & it promotes more modeling and painting.  The lack of restrictions is a double edged sword; while it gives you the freedom to play how you want with your friends, it also means that it is most often played exclusively (and often privately) among friends only. This trend can inhibit going out and trying to make new friends, sharing the hobby with more people and the overall growth of a community. In areas where there are already communities, this is not really an issue. For all the areas with no communities (or communities that fell apart in the AoS rage-quit) it has been very difficult to grow a new community while so many people are afraid or not interested in playing socially.

Now lets talk about Group B - the point-lovers. This group is mostly people who have always had points and are turned off by the concept of playing a tabletop game without points.

• B Positives: Everyone now has the same footing. The community has been largely split worldwide with Azyr comp, wound count, 9th age, KoW, Pool/SCGT, etc. With GW-backed point system, all these people who want points can finally come together. Each of the groups with a few members can now combine into one large Matched-Play group. Many people who refused to play a game with no rules for army comp now are now interested in AoS for the first time. In many areas, it is like a great wall has been torn down and empty communities are now bustling with excited players.
  
  The new point values are of a singular vision. They are all released at the same time, in the same book - a stark contrast to 8th which was a combination of different peoples ideas in books released decades apart. GW is more responsive than ever before, releasing official statements on Facebook (often within hours of asking a question) which are now being organized into official FAQs. This means that if issues come about, GW can quickly put the kibosh on them (not having to deal with them for years like 8th edition). Horrific imbalances like cannons and spells are specifically limited with a greater overall sense of balance. 
  
  Summoning is now restricted. Most comp systems have already been doing it, but many people need to see something official in writing. This meas many people who refused to play due to summoning are now excited to return to the hobby.
  
  Above I mention people bumping heads over unit values. Now that we are told their values, there can be no disagreement in matched play. For example, if your opponent brings Skarbrand, no matter where you are in the world - you know they have paid 400 points for him. For the first time, you can comfortably play a pick-up game with a random person.
  
  -Playing with new people means making new friends.
  -Making new friends means the growth of a new club.
  -The growth of clubs worldwide means more organized local events.
  -Support for organized events means events will continually get bigger and better.
  -Large events and groups lead to many more people hearing about the hobby and more people getting into it.
  -More people playing means more models, more community feedback, more support for the hobby.
  -More support for the hobby means better stocked stores, better terrain at local stores, more support from GW.
  -More support from GW means even more model releases, even more organized events and campaigns, faster and better releases.
   
• B Negatives: People who like summoning can't do it anymore. You might disagree on GW given point values, and some of your favorite models might get 'overcosted'. Battleline will often lead to having to buy models you don't want and having to assembly-line paint hordes of models you don't even like.
  
  Some units *may* end up severely under-costed, leading to people taking them in droves, This means the return of 'Net Lists' and clubs with the same power lists being played over and over. People may gravitate to the same basic terrain setup, just playing simple "march forward and kill" games ignoring battleplans, Time of War, unique terrain and other special rules. 
   
• B Summary: While there are many new limitations that can be frustrating, points can bring people together and grow a community much better than we have seen with Open Play. Everyone now has common ground to stand on, whether you like the ground or not.
   

In conclusion, it seems like there are a lot more people who refuse to play due to a lack of points (or open summoning) then people who refuse to play because they don't like the idea of points. Most people who like Open are grudgingly willing to accept trying points, whereas people who want points are almost completely unwilling to play a game without them. Of course, if the hobby turns into nothing but power-list slugfests, it will go the other way; many people who have really been enjoying Open will probably quit. We will have to shape a middle ground where we benefit from all the positives and avoid most of the negatives.

I think that the best direction of the hobby is for us all to embrace both styles of play. Matched Play can draw people in who have severe reservations regarding open play. Matched Play points, along with exciting new Allegiance rules can draw people in and get people to go out and try games with new people, make friends and grow a local community over time. 

Once a community is established, and you are more familiar with the people you play with (ideally having made some new friends) you can start to gravitate away from strict play. For example, if someone likes to play a fluffy list that loses hard every game, you are likely going to start to feel bad blowing them out every game. You'll want to give them some extra points or take less points to give yourself a kind of handicap and make the games more fair. (After all, taking less points is no different than having a bad first turn in matched play, and trying to use good tactics to come back. This can only make you a better player overall.)

I think it is important as a worldwide community to avoid playing just "march forward" style games. Even in 8th edition, most events had specific scenarios so there has never really been a reason to play such bland games. At least take the time to pick one of the 6 battleplans, and roll for a few pieces of terrain. These simple things greatly change the dynamic of the game, making them more interesting and making you have to learn to be a better player to win.

As players get used to the basic battleplans, many players will want to start branching out - trying other battleplans, incorporating Time of War rules, then even trying narrative battleplans and adding unique terrain pieces. Matched Play is essential to grow a club, but properly managed clubs can easily evolve to play more diverse games, and many people completely against Open Play may eventually migrate to play some Open Play games. Hey - maybe even some of these people will find they even prefer Open Play!

When you combine the club growing power of Matched Play, with the freedom and fun of playing Open and Narrative, there is no limit to the future of Warhammer. I think we will see the hobby grow to heights we never dreamed of being possible. Imagine 1000 player tournaments in major venus. Imagine the wealth of tactical knowledge available when there are hundreds of thousands of people all over the world trying interesting tactics and reporting them online. Imagine every cool model painted a thousand different ways, all the amazing modeling and painting that will come about when there are flourishing communities in every major city around the world.

AoS may very well be the golden age of Warhammer Fantasy.

 

[Thanatos Ares]

I must say that this is a very well thought out and very well presented summary of both camps and the conclusion I agree with.

Very well done Sir

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lissë-Prime]

I would say Open Play is simply impossible to organise without argument. No matter it's tournament or just have fun with friends, the outcome is that players will come with an army as huge as they can bring and a single game will last overnight.

Matched play is the best for all situations. We can use points as a guide and limit. And still have some freedom to play and have fun with.

[Turragor]

Good points. I am for both styles for different cirucmstances myself. Whatever gets me more and more varied games.

I have seen one word I don't like crop up more often: "viable". People asking if subfaction X is viable, if unit Y is viable in games of 2000 or less.

I don't like that word in any game setting. It means people are completely writing off options and not thinking of fun first and foremost.

Oh and I think I also saw someone in a fb group ask "which unit gives you the most bang for your points?" and I must say I groaned aloud.

[BoardGames]

I'm all for the points. If it werent them, I wouldn't start AoS, I'm used to Warmahordes aNd I don't want to argue about balance, points give us enough footing to dance around it, if anyone feels like powergaming with netlists - let him do it, a week later nobody would want to play games with him anyway.

Summoning... Yeah, that sux, but probably for good. 

[Turragor]

1 hour ago, Lissë-Prime said:

I would say Open Play is simply impossible to organise without argument. No matter it's tournament or just have fun with friends, the outcome is that players will come with an army as huge as they can bring and a single game will last overnight.

Matched play is the best for all situations. We can use points as a guide and limit. And still have some freedom to play and have fun with.

That's not how some friends work though.

40 minutes ago, BoardGames said:

if anyone feels like powergaming with netlists - let him do it, a week later nobody would want to play games with him anyway.

This applies to open play too though.

The best function for points is tournament play and playing people you don't know. You can also use them to balance in open play against friends. They're handy but not the core of the game.

[BoardGames]

Yeah, but while in points system there will be some few models with wrong costs, in open system everything is debatable. And that easily escalates to arguments.

[Knight of Ruin]

The biggest issue i have with points in general is that they only fake balance. As so often used, an example from 40k.

1500 points of Eldar is on a whole different level than a 1500 points of chaos space marines. And that is just one example. There are several more with other armies too.

As far i understand, this is made worse in the GHB, where the points take into account certain synegies that you can make between units. And altough that is an important part of playing, what if you want a different model that doesn't provide the same synergies. 

In tournament, yes the points are a good thing.

In pick up games, i would use the points as a guideline, but wouldn't look odd if it's 950 vs 1100 or something (for example), especially when playing battleplans.

[Lissë-Prime]

12 minutes ago, Turragor said:

That's not how friends work though.

That's mayby how 'Asian' friends work though.

I've seen some 40k forums such as Advanced Tau Tactica discuss how to 'friendly' play Tau against other players. They discuss something such as how Tau players can setup army that is not too OP, which we simply not understand. How we friendly deal with Tau being too powerful is to beat them to the ground with Necrons and some Space Marines chapters rendering hit and run useless and force them to change tactic entirely.

That's how we play and have fun with friends. And we still have beer after that. (For strangers we maybe more compromised)

What I mean is that, even if there're rules, Asian tend to exploit them to the max even with friends. So open play do not work here.

[Turragor]

6 minutes ago, Lissë-Prime said:

That's mayby how 'Asian' friends work though.

I've seen some 40k forums such as Advanced Tau Tactica discuss how to 'friendly' play Tau against other players. They discuss something such as how Tau players can setup army that is not too OP, which we simply not understand. How we friendly deal with Tau being too powerful is to beat them to the ground with Necrons and some Space Marines chapters rendering hit and run useless and force them to change tactic entirely.

That's how we play and have fun with friends. And we still have beer after that. (For strangers we maybe more compromised)

What I mean is that, even if there're rules, Asian tend to exploit them to the max even with friends. So open play do not work here.

Okay, this made me laugh but point taken.

Even so you won't be playing 100% fairly with points. It's just a cap you stay under but you will no doubt all be working to get 'the most advantage' under that cap and continue destroying your friends!

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

A very good post overall but I do think you're wrong on a couple of points:

Summoning can't be done anymore? Of course it can, it's just restricted. Summoning has more uses than just overwhelming your opponent with more models. I guarantee you will see matched play lists at tournaments with a good portion of reinforcement points for summoning.

Camp A Points are bad people. Everyone's been playing SDK, Clash, Azyr and SCGT for the past year all with differing opinions on what should cost what. And there has been barely anything but the utmost praise to all involved, as soon as GW release their own points system(with influence from all the above comps) people lose their minds and say everything is broken and a Netlist within days of the book being released!! People haven't even really played enough of the pitched battles to see how everything is effected to make an informed opinion, it's all just speculation and biased comparisons.

People will continue to play exactly how they want to Open, Narrative or Matched and there will be plenty of other options for those who like things that fall inbetween the three types, narrative campaign weekend tourneys with points for example.

[mmimzie]

I'll echo summoning isn't gone??? This is a silly over reaction. It's like saying a necromancer has one less close combat attack so it sucks or something. 

 

I just assume let folks do what they want. We aren't the only ones who play this game, and everyone plays for different reasons. 

[WoollyMammoth]

Quote

the outcome is that players will come with an army as huge as they can bring and a single game will last overnight.

This sounds awesome lol.

@Turragor
If people are playing the Battleplans, composition is not as important as tactics. People don't need to stress over taking the best things.
 

@Knight of Ruin
There is no such thing as balance. Points simply organize two forces with somewhat similar footing. There are still bad choices and good choices. 40k is scattered ideas from multiple people like 8th was, there is little to no coherency between codexes. AoS is a game built from the ground up to have coherency.

When you say Eldar is better than Chaos Space Marines, what you mean is that when Eldar takes the most optimal models, those models are better than the most optimal models Chaos Marines can take. You can certainly build Eldar lists that Chaos could win against. Eldar has a huge imbalance around like 3 units that GW is not addressing because the system is working and selling a lot of models. Their plan is to add rules to Chaos Marines so they have broken units to compete with Eldars broken units.

This 'arms race' was what was happening in 8th edition too - Daemons were broken, so they released High Elves to counter them, which were then broken, so they released Dark Elves to break High Elves.  Then they finally decided to stop this nonsense and bring everything back down to earth by making AoS. I wont be surprised when they do the same thing to 40k.

@The Jabber Tzeentch @mmimzie
Open summoning has been removed. Of course you can do limited summoning in Matched Play. I have been using limited summoning for a year. A great example is to summon 2 Harbingers who can easily make a 9" charge for a first turn threat. I happy to play whatever - as long as summoning is limited. 

 

[Sith'ari]

7 hours ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

Camp A Points are bad people. Everyone's been playing SDK, Clash, Azyr and SCGT for the past year all with differing opinions on what should cost what. And there has been barely anything but the utmost praise to all involved, as soon as GW release their own points system(with influence from all the above comps) people lose their minds and say everything is broken and a Netlist within days of the book being released!! People haven't even really played enough of the pitched battles to see how everything is effected to make an informed opinion, it's all just speculation and biased comparisons.

Like Turragor, my main concern isn't with the points themselves, but the potential they have to dominate every aspect of the game. I've already seen a lot of AoS discussions (both online and IRL) shift away from the development of fun battleplan's and creating interesting armies based around a piece of background (the all gargant tribe for example) to "why are you taking unit x? They aren't worth it." and "Alarielle's over costed, no one will ever use her!"

This isn't to say I hate matched play - far from it! It definitely has its place as a way to get a game going quickly against a complete stranger (whether as a PuG or tournament) but I just dont want it to overshadow everything else and become "the only way to play."

[mmimzie]

3 minutes ago, Sith'ari said:

"why are you taking unit x? They aren't worth it." and "Alarielle's over costed, no one will ever use her!"

 

Because you want to... people have been doing this for years... i do it to this day...

 

4 minutes ago, Sith'ari said:

 shift away from the development of fun battleplan's and creating interesting armies

Do you think folks want to turn the game into a job??? Why would they make something do something they didn't find fun x.x

[pez5767]

Great post, very thoughtful.  

I agree wholeheartedly with Woollymammoth's conclusion that people should try and avoid playing AoS without using a battleplans and terrain.  I would go even further to try and encourage folks to build their forces specifically to a given scenario, or agree in advance with an opponent to randomly roll and build all-comers lists.  Anecdotally, most of the people I've interacted with in my community who don't care for AoS, tried to line up and smash each other in much the similar way to 8th ed., and then complained that the game lacked any tactical nuance. More so, I believe the issues was that they were trying to play 8th ed. , which worked well as a "line up and smash each other" type of game, while using the AoS rules, which simply doesn't work due to the multitude of inherent differences to the systems, not the least of which being the freedom of movement in AoS.

As for those who are crying, "WE MUST USE POINTS!!!" above.  Please stop.  We get it, you really like and need points in your games.  Not everyone does, and that's okay... you can still play with points.  This is the 2nd thread, here on the Grand Alliance, I've seen where the topic of Matched Play or Open Play has come up only to be railroaded by those who prefer points.  WoollyMammoth specifically outlines that both sides have pros and cons, and he's right, they do.

If you want to play competitively, you're probably going to need and want to use points. However, it is possible to play this game in a collaborative way; in which case, you don't necessarily need the points.

10 hours ago, Lissë-Prime said:

I would say Open Play is simply impossible to organize without argument. No matter it's tournament or just have fun with friends, the outcome is that players will come with an army as huge as they can bring and a single game will last overnight.

Matched play is the best for all situations. We can use points as a guide and limit. And still have some freedom to play and have fun with.

Again, to offer an experiential rebuttal, my play group, which is admittedly small with about a dozen regular players, does not use points to organize our games.  We have tried it, and found it to be a less enjoyable means of play for the way we like to spend our time at the table. We, as the initial rules offer, discuss what would make for a fun or interesting match-up and play that way.  Haven't had an argument yet about what's "fair," because both players have to agree what to play with, prior to the game.  After games, the discussion of tactics vs. army selection has been very enjoyable.  

No one style of play is best of all situations.  Other than points, players can also use camaraderie, fair-play, and collaborative-fun as a separate or additional means of guiding and limiting their choices.

[Turragor]

15 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

Because you want to... people have been doing this for years... i do it to this day...

 

Do you think folks want to turn the game into a job??? Why would they make something do something they didn't find fun x.x

The point is that that is fun for one set of players. It's also kind of cool. Working out which unit is most powerful for points isn't so cool. Though, some ppl think the opposite.

As @WoollyMammoth mentioned we can hope battleplans add the strategy that prevent unit and army homogenisation. People who work to find the best unit for X points aren't actually obsessed with that in itself but having the most efficient list for their points.

So if there's always scenario variation they'll work out the best varied balanced army lists for the points cost and I think that's pretty fun myself.

 

[Dez]

Points made the game playable for me. I'm not saying that it was the be all end all, I had tons of fun playing without points. It's just that locally, no one would without balance around here. I blame this squarely on the ability to summon with no cap.

I'm happy to report that the community is now buzzing around here with the GBH out.

[Thanatos Ares]

The best example I can think of is from my gaming group.

When I joined I was a fluff WHFB player with cool fluff reasons for every selection in my Orcs & Goblins list. All characters had names as did units etc.. However the group I joined were tournament competitive players who were always play testing various lists for upcoming tourneys. This approach to the game I loved I really didn't like but that being said, I quickly realised it wasn't fun for me to arrange a game and get smashed of the table and it wasn't fun for my opponent either. So I made a conscious choice to invest in a different army and took advice from my club mates and 'netlists' to make a more competitive list (whilst still trying to keep my fluff brain happy)

After which it opened my eyes to a very different approach to the exact same game! And I now enjoy both sides to playing a game. As the most important part is BOTH players enjoying the game they're playing

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Soulsmith]

I have yet to actually play a game of AOS, but I am interested in playing both types. I've written a cheap  and cheerful 1000pt list using old fantasy stuff I owned. Battleline tax is fine when you have skull pass  But I would also like to try narrative and open, just keeping it fair and balanced as a discussion between players. 

[WoollyMammoth]

@pez5767
8th Edition did not work well as a 'line up and smash' game, that's just what people did.  As a result the hobby was shrinking and shrinking. Every event I ever heard of had a scenario for each game. European Team Championships was probably the biggest culprit, as the ultimate tournament and just a smash face event that lots of tournament players looked up to. I really hope we don't see this with AoS.

@Dez
My club was also dead as Open Play. I'm excited to finally see people interested.

@Thanatos Ares
I had a similar experience in 8th. The reality was less because my list was too soft and more because I was playing against guys playing for major tournaments with much more experience and skill with the game than I had. If you really know what you are doing, you can still have a fun game.

The problem with buying a 'net list' is that you have to buy and paint your fluff list and then another 'net list'. A lot of people put their blood sweat and tears into every model, so getting 60 Clanrats for the 'net list' is not something a lot of people are into. Many people simply have financial or time restrictions. Buying $600 more models to fill out the 'net list' so you can play competitively is tough (though many of us will take any excuse to start a new army). I don't think a 'net list' is really important anymore - you might add a few strong models to your fluff list but as long as people are playing Battleplans it shouldn't hinder you for having successful games.

@Soulsmith
My best advice is to take your models off the unit trays and try deploying your units in some kind of formations together. It takes more time to move models around but it gives you a better sense of how AoS differs from old systems.

@everybody
Lots of talk about points and 8th ed and what you 'have to take', so I made a new topic about this

 

[rokapoke]

2 hours ago, Thanatos Ares said:

the most important part is BOTH players enjoying the game they're playing

Yes, yes, one thousand times yes!

I've seen a surge of interest locally because of the Handbook release, but I've found a great playgroup and I'm enjoying all my games now. Points are used to scale the battle, not necessarily to "create balance." Before the handbook, it was SCGT. And it works well enough for what we do with it. The General's Handbook point system provides a convenient measuring stick for our games.

[pez5767]

20 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@pez5767
8th Edition did not work well as a 'line up and smash' game, that's just what people did.  As a result the hobby was shrinking and shrinking. Every event I ever heard of had a scenario for each game. European Team Championships was probably the biggest culprit, as the ultimate tournament and just a smash face event that lots of tournament players looked up to. I really hope we don't see this with AoS.

I agree, I hope the community is able to continue to embrace all of the various styles of play.  In my local, I'll be pushing for a Path to Glory event as soon as the Season of War is done.

Yeah, I was surprised you didn't include the relationship between points and tournaments in your Points-Lovers B-Negatives part of your initial post.  Wherein one major tournament sets X-number-of-points, and then everyone seems to follow suit making that the default means of play.

[daedalus81]

I'm really amazed at the constant attempt to evangelize people from points to open play.  If people like points - let them like it.  Stop trying to build this utopia that doesn't exist.

[mmimzie]

3 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

I'm really amazed at the constant attempt to evangelize people from points to open play.  If people like points - let them like it.  Stop trying to build this utopia that doesn't exist.

Well the fear is they really do quite like the open play experience. I know they enjoy always beable to just throw down an open play game, but it will very much likely shift toward a points. So they'll be more forced into only playing with select people who want to play open. They'll go from main stream to kinda the weird kids in that makes any since.

It's a fear most social group have, and it's a reasonable one to have.

This said i've seen so many people, myself include jumping on AoS now that points are here.