Fear of Points

[MechaBriZilla]

IT HAS BEGUN!

Ok, now that my dramatic start is out of the way...

Am I the only one a little worried that the GHB and points may already be destroying (what I think is) the best part of AoS, narrative play?

I'm a relatively new member of the board, so if this has been done to death, I apologize, but it seems like so many of the posts I'm seeing have more and more to do with building army lists, what is/isn't competitive, and optimal builds.  Don't get me wrong, anything that breaths life into the game and community is awesome.  I'm so happy to see every type of player here.  Heck, I even enjoy this part of the game.

That said, when the old world blew up, I wasn't sad in the slightest.  In my opinion, the whole thing had become so stagnant, too similar to lots of other fantasy settings, and .  I had enjoyed it for years, but it was ready for a renewal.  Age of Sigmar was more than I could have asked for.  A game that could scale to whatever size you wanted.  A huge, high fantasy setting, where literally anything can happen.  Points, which I have always had a love/hate relationship with (more on this later) were gone!!!  Now the setting is really about telling a story, not just facilitating giant battles. between generic versions of the same 12 or so armies.

Full disclosure - I have yet to actually get to play a game using the new point system.  

My problem with points, is that I have very rarely come upon a game system where I felt they actually represented anything like balance.  More often they were gamed to come up with the best list to smash other people's faces.  I hate to say this, but I feel like GW was the worst for this.  As much as I love the company, their settings, and products, they just never seem to get points right.  Power creep seems to be very real with their products.  Currently I have completely abandoned 40k for two reasons.  A) the dominance of some armies over others. B) Rules bloat that make it impossible to keep track of how the game currently plays.  That second one is a personal problem.  As a working father, I just don't have the time to keep up with what's going on in that game.  Which is another reason I love AoS.  Massive strategic options, itty bitty base rules, with lots of small overlays (battleplanse/time of war rules) that provide infinite variety.  I also loved that, without points, AoS had essentially removed the problem of units that were not worth taking, or were auto includes.  Finally, though I know the general consensus has been that the current state of the points is pretty good, I'm not sure I have faith that they can remain that way.  This system was built upon a fan made system (SCGT iirc) that was vetted in tournament play, and then actual community members were brought in to give their opinion of the final lay of the land.  I can't imagine this will happen with every new Battletome, which means that in as little as one new codex, we could be looking at all of the same problems we had with points under WHFB.

Again, don't get me wrong, it's not the points in of themselves that I have a problem with.  It's my fear that in a very short time, all of my pick up games will be dominated by net-lists, and WaaC players.  That the idea of using the beautifully built narrative battleplans from the Realmgate campaign books will become anathema to most of the community.  Though I enjoy competitive play, I desperately want the default game play to be more about having fun than about building an optimized list and tabling your opponent.

Ok....  

Go ahead guys, pull me off the ledge.

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

I've played AoS from the outset, and I can say I feel very little difference in games using a variety of methods, 4 page rules, models, wounds, SDK, clash, SCGT, matched play. I've tried many and honestly, with a few exceptions the game feels the same.

And the people who play with GW points have used some version points all along. They're all the same really.

Personally I think the Matched Play system is better than any other that GW have ever released. And there are many tournaments using it and their own variations which is great to see.

I suggest if you really are worried then find a group of like minded people and just don't play with points.

[rokapoke]

5 minutes ago, MechaBriZilla said:

Again, don't get me wrong, it's not the points in of themselves that I have a problem with.  It's my fear that in a very short time, all of my pick up games will be dominated by net-lists, and WaaC players.  That the idea of using the beautifully built narrative battleplans from the Realmgate campaign books will become anathema to most of the community.  Though I enjoy competitive play, I desperately want the default game play to be more about having fun than about building an optimized list and tabling your opponent.

My issue with this concern is this: if you are playing against jerks, it doesn't matter what style of game you play. If you play against a ****** in open play, you won't have fun. If you play against a ****** in narrative play, you won't have fun. If you play against a ****** in matched play, you won't have fun. Yes, the WAAC players will "justify" their lists by showing you that they have the same total points as you, but it's still no fun.

I have played a good 6-8 matched play games in my play group, and virtually every game has come down to a few rolls (often turn initiative rolls, but not always) at the end. I've enjoyed every game, and (from what I can tell) my opponents have too. I personally had bigger issues with a different playgroup before points were introduced, because my local game shop created a wounds-based "balance" system that certain players went out of their way to exploit.

Bottom line, don't be that guy, and don't play that guy, either, and you'll enjoy whatever style of play you are using.

[MechaBriZilla]

21 minutes ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

I suggest if you really are worried then find a group of like minded people and just don't play with points.

 

17 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

Bottom line, don't be that guy, and don't play that guy, either, and you'll enjoy whatever style of play you are using.

These are very fair statements, and I agree with 100% of what you are both saying.

But, perhaps in my rush to explain my fears I didn't communicate my situation very well.

My current situation in life makes it hard for me to have a regular group that meets at anything like a regular time.  What this means is that I rely mostly on finding pick up games at my local clubs, and I mostly play strangers, or people I've only met a few times in other pick up games.  What this means is that if things start to lean competitive, it will be increasingly likely that I will be running into more and more of these players, and as a group, competitive player basis by their nature include more of 'that guy'.  I'll have no way of knowing I'm playing him until a round or two in, and that may be the only game I get for a month or more.

Now, as you say, the points system right now it great, and I'll trust you on that, maybe it even reduces how effectively 'that guy' can build his army of certain doom for all commers.  But points have other effects.  They do preclude access to certain thematic list types.  I.e., if you wanted to play a clan of giants as appear in the Godbeasts book, you can't really do that.  Or, if you wanted to play an all Wolfrider goblin army (It's a personal dream of mine, but I'm sort of holding off, in hopes they'll get new models when a battletome including them drops.) again, not possible.  In open play, you'd just look at these armies, and attempt to balance them in whatever way you can using the models in your opponents collection, heck if things were going really bad for one side a turn in or so, you could adjust on the fly and keep them in the game, by allowing surprise reinforcements, or some other change to the game.  Also, as time goes on, there is the uncertainty that points will remain as well done as they seem to be now.

Again, I'm not saying that I think people who use points are horrible, or that I hate them as a premise.  What I'm saying is that I don't have many play options to begin with, and I'm worried the GHB will make the standard of play more even more limited, when my favorite thing about AoS is it's unlimited nature.  

[Veterannoob]

I sympathize with this but have been fortunate so far in local scene to have good opponents where this is less a problem. Saturday I asked a guy if he wanted to play, he wanted  a huge game which I love. He wanted to keep the points pretty balanced even though I insisted I don't care if you're over, even hundreds of points but we made it even, then he had summon stuff to the side. Anyway, we had an excellent gaming experience by using points to make lists (I used the entirety of my Fyreslayer collection for the first time ever ) and used the rules of 1, but we picked a narrative scenario (storm front) and had a great game like that. Next time we play we won't even need points now that we know each other.

So don't fret, you can get the best of both worlds. But it likely will be easier to have open and narrative games with someone you know or have at least played against once. Good luck!

[MechaBriZilla]

2 minutes ago, Veterannoob said:

I sympathize with this but have been fortunate so far in local scene to have good opponents where this is less a problem. Saturday I asked a guy if he wanted to play, he wanted  a huge game which I love. He wanted to keep the points pretty balanced even though I insisted I don't care if you're over, even hundreds of points but we made it even, then he had summon stuff to the side. Anyway, we had an excellent gaming experience by using points to make lists (I used the entirety of my Fyreslayer collection for the first time ever ) and used the rules of 1, but we picked a narrative scenario (storm front) and had a great game like that. Next time we play we won't even need points now that we know each other.

So don't fret, you can get the best of both worlds. But it likely will be easier to have open and narrative games with someone you know or have at least played against once. Good luck!

I appear to be out of 'likes' So, thank you!  I'm glad to hear that these games aren't going away.

[Veterannoob]

here, have a "like"

[Lissë-Prime]

Every game that have points will eventually boil down into net lists. Actually in 8^th edition I was bored because I played High Elves and with my play style I could play only few combination, because other players will take on me mercilessly and I have to build the army with maximum save in mind. I did fear the same thing but now that I played many games using points, I'm not willing to play any match without point again.

People will surely take advantage of anything in competitive game no matter how you say about them. If one can build an army that is perfectly legal and perfectly overpower, who will not do it?

Anyway, this does not mean taking point out altogether will lead to anything better.

Even if there are points, there're still exploiters. If there are no point, do you think these players will play a more balance game? What mechanic do you think it will prevent them to bring 10 dragons into play if they have? It's all about people and how they play, not the system.

Point is there as a common unit to judge a balance in a quick way. For the themed or narrative game, you can still play with points. Just make some exception such as battleline or faction restriction. GW said more than one time in their books that's it's very fine for players to come up with house rules of whatsoever. But points are still there for you to look at when this question is raised: How many unit do we want to play for this game?

Let's take this scenario.

Assume I have 2 Stardrakes, 8 Dracothian Guards, 1 Prime, 3 LCoD, 2 LC, 3 Relictors, 30 Paladins, 50 Liberators, 15 Judi, 3 of each Knights.
I don't know how many unit do you have but I really want to play with all my collection.
You actually have a 8 units of Varanguard and an Archaon. You ask me to use only a few units for balance.

What factor should I take into account to set up an army to play with you? Wounds? Attacks? Common sense?
I can argue that you have a very powerful beast and elite cavalry in your hand so I can take powerful army too.

Now I don't want to be 'that' guy but I just want some reliable measurement to select my army. Do you have suggestion?

[daedalus81]

16 minutes ago, Lissë-Prime said:

Every game that have points will eventually boil down into net lists. Actually in 8^th edition I was bored because I played High Elves and with my play style I could play only few combination, because other players will take on me mercilessly and I have to build the army with maximum save in mind. I did fear the same thing but now that I played many games using points, I'm not willing to play any match without point again.

People will surely take advantage of anything in competitive game no matter how you say about them. If one can build an army that is perfectly legal and perfectly overpower, who will not do it?

Anyway, this does not mean taking point out altogether will lead to anything better.

Nope.  No.  Uh uh.  

Net lists are just that -- net lists.  Often discussed and rarely seen on the table.  

If one can build an army that is perfectly legal and perfectly overpower, who will not do it?

Well, if you're implying that everyone takes advantage then surely no one has an advantage.  Reminds me of 'The Incredibles'.  If you're talking about what happens in reality - lots of people, because they realize "powerful" lists are riddled with weaknesses.

[Lissë-Prime]

15 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

Nope.  No.  Uh uh.  

Net lists are just that -- net lists.  Often discussed and rarely seen on the table.  

If one can build an army that is perfectly legal and perfectly overpower, who will not do it?

Well, if you're implying that everyone takes advantage then surely no one has an advantage.  Reminds me of 'The Incredibles'.  If you're talking about what happens in reality - lots of people, because they realize "powerful" lists are riddled with weaknesses.

I agree. 

What I mean is that everyone will try to take advantage (though rarely will have perfect advantage).

So the point system are not to be feared at all in this case.

[Ansuz]

I must admit that I've been a bit worried about the abundance of posts like "competitive this", competitive that" that are appearing on this board lately. But I think it's just a consequence of the release of GHB and the coming back of so many people to the game. Most of the new and returning players go to the matched play because it's easier for them to find players IMO and because that's how almost all this kind of games work. 

[amysrevenge]

8 minutes ago, Ansuz said:

I must admit that I've been a bit worried about the abundance of posts like "competitive this", competitive that" that are appearing on this board lately. But I think it's just a consequence of the release of GHB and the coming back of so many people to the game. Most of the new and returning players go to the matched play because it's easier for them to find players IMO and because that's how almost all this kind of games work. 

I hear you, but what you're really seeing is a continuation of the trend for tournament players to have the loudest voices - this is a community, and the tournament guys tend to have the interests and skillsets necessary for loud participation.

[daedalus81]

45 minutes ago, Lissë-Prime said:

I agree. 

What I mean is that everyone will try to take advantage (though rarely will have perfect advantage).

So the point system are not to be feared at all in this case.

Ah, ok, my mistake!

[mmimzie]

26 minutes ago, Ansuz said:

I must admit that I've been a bit worried about the abundance of posts like "competitive this", competitive that" that are appearing on this board lately. But I think it's just a consequence of the release of GHB and the coming back of so many people to the game. Most of the new and returning players go to the matched play because it's easier for them to find players IMO and because that's how almost all this kind of games work. 

THis is due to a spike in players like me. Who LOVE!!! the Fantasy setting and the AOS rules, but couldn't stand to play the game with out points as a third part is needed to help arbitrate our list.

I'll say it as i always have. Points do not mean balance. They are a third party telling you how much of waht you can take. So that units can actualy have different strength. With out points the profiles on units are next to meaningless, as sure your star drake has awesome stats and can do lots of cool thing, but i'm gonna bring 1k clan rats because whatever.

Points are like this. Imagine you come up to me and tell me you just walked 50 miles. This is meaningless. Does this mean you've walked 50 miles in your whole life your odometer just ticked 50??? or where you running for some specified amount of time??? is that how much you did today??? or this week?? Points are this unit of time. They are the 15minute mile. I can learn a lot about what you did with that information. 

Now as @amysrevenge says, another reason you're seeing so many of us comeptive folks popping up is that we have a reason to talk about the game ALOT. It's not just so much that we are loud, but when your playing the more open casual games you just don't have alot to say. You talk about how awesome the models look, maybe a few cool things that happend in your game, your paint or building projects and maybe where to get discontinued models.

 

With competitive play, we can talk about this game for hours and hours in person, and still not get to conclusions. 2 and a half hour games can result in 3 page long threads debating on what the right move should have been. Every list can be broken, bent, and stretched in different ways to meet various criteria. It's just the nature of the beast.

[Mikester1487]

I definitely feel what you're saying with competitive lists and have been concerned about it as well. 

With that being said I try to ask who I'm playing if we could use points just so I know what to bring with me to the gaming table.  I'm a bit of a model hoarder and taking 80 ard boyz plus the 60 or so other iron jawz to sit in my car while I'm at work isn't feasible.  

I like to tow that line of points just for a quick guide.  If I get competitive I enjoy taking what's not as good because like any destruction player it's the love of a good fight!

The true power of arrer boys will be realized someday...

[Veterannoob]

6 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

THis is due to a spike in players like me. Who LOVE!!! the Fantasy setting and the AOS rules, but couldn't stand to play the game with out points as a third part is needed to help arbitrate our list.

I'll say it as i always have. Points do not mean balance. They are a third party telling you how much of waht you can take. So that units can actualy have different strength. With out points the profiles on units are next to meaningless, as sure your star drake has awesome stats and can do lots of cool thing, but i'm gonna bring 1k clan rats because whatever.

Points are like this. Imagine you come up to me and tell me you just walked 50 miles. This is meaningless. Does this mean you've walked 50 miles in your whole life your odometer just ticked 50??? or where you running for some specified amount of time??? is that how much you did today??? or this week?? Points are this unit of time. They are the 15minute mile. I can learn a lot about what you did with that information. 

Now as @amysrevenge says, another reason you'd seeing so many of us comeptive folks popping up is that we have a reason to talk about the game ALOT. It's not just so much that we are loud, but when your playing the more open casual games you just don't have alot to say. You talk about how awesome the models look, maybe a few cool things that happend in your game, your paint or building projects and maybe where to get discontinued models.

 

With competitive play, we can talk about this game for hours and hours in person, and still not get to conclusions. 2 and a half hour games can result in 3 page long threads debating on what the right move should have been. Every list can be broken, bent, and stretched in different ways to meet various criteria. It's just the nature of the beast.

@mmimzie & @amysrevenge both make great points here, even if I'm not in the need-points category. 

[Jupiter]

So far we have been using points just for reference we never even fully calculated them but its good to now that your playing in the same balpark of points even though we only use free/narative play. For some its even impossiblle to use the battleline tax. Why would ardboys become none battleline if you add a random giant etc. As long as something is in the spirit of the game its all good.

[daedalus81]

Just now, Jupiter said:

Why would ardboys become none battleline if you add a random giant etc

Let's use an extreme example -- stonehorns/thundertusks as battle line plus anything else in destruction that you want.  

[PraetorDragoon]

I have no issue with points. You always need to talk to kind of balance the game, and points do help a lot by making it easier to come to an agreement. I do not like the mindset that often comes with them though, as I really loathe the phrase "I don't think those are worth their points."

Personally I think that battlelines are a antiquated, artificial from of balancing that should be better solved in the form of scenarios or points.  Things like Core, Troops or Battleline "tax" (using this term loosely, as Stonehorns/Thundertusks are obviously not tax) have always done very little to actually balance the game while being complete killers for fun, interesting or thematic lists.

[MechaBriZilla]

@mmimzie Welcome Back! I'm glad to have you folks back, I really am.  But the truth is us folks have as much to talk about.  The realms are huge!  We can discuss ideas for new battleplans and time of war rules, without points, it's even possible to homebrew units and characters.  Stories take the lead, and there is a ton of stuff there to be dug into.  However, I have never been able to find a place where this comes to the fore, in terms of Forums... Not sure why.  But world building and background are hugely important to narrative players.

I know points make things easier in many ways, but it really is possible to have balance without them.  Some of this comes through in the battleplans that require that the army with model advantage play a certain side of the battle.  Armies can also be given 'home field advantage' through times of war rules.  How can these things, which are my favorite part of the game, be accounted for in a matched play format?  They have no inherent point cost, but are so good at making each game feel different.  They are by their very nature unbalancing, and I just don't know how I could convince a stranger to use them in matched play.  

[MechaBriZilla]

1 minute ago, PraetorDragoon said:

I have no issue with points. You always need to talk to kind of balance the game, and points do help a lot by making it easier to come to an agreement. I do not like the mindset that often comes with them though, as I really loathe the phrase "I don't think those are worth their points."

Personally I think that battlelines are a antiquated, artificial from of balancing that should be better solved in the form of scenarios or points.  Things like Core, Troops or Battleline "tax" (using this term loosely, as Stonehorns/Thundertusks are obviously not tax) have always done very little to actually balance the game while being complete killers for fun, interesting or thematic lists.

This!!!!

 

I want my army list to be thematic.  

That's one reason, I'm trying to make up units to fill out a Deathrattle list.  i.e. I've made up a Lich Warscroll for the purposes of adding magic to my army.  I have two different versions though.  One that is essentially a reskined Necromancer, that I ask people I don't know if I can use.  Essentially, the only difference between him and a Necro is key words, and one thematic but mostly useless power that allows him to come back to the battle if he dies.  The other (which I'm still working out the details on) will be a full on named character with abilities and special rules.  Finally... if I must, I just use the Necromancer war scroll, and break my theme for my army.

Also, I have lots of ideas for lists, that could never be legal under the Matched play rules, but I would love to build and play.  Not the 10 dragon list of doom, but as in my earlier example, an all goblin wolfrider force, based on mounted, mobility based armies that have existed throughout history.  

[KhaosZand3r]

Points brought back the huge number of players that jumped ship when AoS came out. My group hasn't even played in the last year because of the lack of points, and now we're gonna finally start playing again. Sure it isn't a perfect system but that's why there are house rule clauses.

[Jupiter]

36 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

Let's use an extreme example -- stonehorns/thundertusks as battle line plus anything else in destruction that you want.  

Yes, that is why I added in the spirit of the game. But even for full matched play I dislike that the battleline options are so limited. Ofcourse Stonehorn and thundertusk shouldnt be battleline for random destruction armies but there are quite some units that could be fine battlelines like my example of ardboys.

[MechaBriZilla]

5 minutes ago, KhaosZand3r said:

Points brought back the huge number of players that jumped ship when AoS came out. My group hasn't even played in the last year because of the lack of points, and now we're gonna finally start playing again. Sure it isn't a perfect system but that's why there are house rule clauses.

Welcome Back KhaosZand3r!

Let me ask you.  If I walked into your where you and your group play, and set down a battleplan that required one of us to have 2/3's more models, and gave the smaller army more magical options, and then a Time of War sheet, that had another set of overlying rules that also unbalanced the battle, would you allow me, as an unknown player to use these? Don't worry about the details of the specific battleplan and time or war rules.  Assume that they are GW produced, and published in a way that they are intended to be played together, but are really make the game much more difficult for one side or the other.

Because those are the games I find compelling.

Again, I'm happy with points.  I was excited (like most of us) to see the GHB.  But since then, the explosion of 'come help me optimize my list for tournament play' and 'is x unit broken' posts have really worried me.  If X is powerful in open or narrative play, you just counter balance, or if the game starts going sideways, you can introduce unexpected reinforcements.  The questions about lists are more about what fits your theme and background for your army, not how to pack in more Mortal wounds....

[KhaosZand3r]

39 minutes ago, MechaBriZilla said:

Welcome Back KhaosZand3r!

Let me ask you.  If I walked into your where you and your group play, and set down a battleplan that required one of us to have 2/3's more models, and gave the smaller army more magical options, and then a Time of War sheet, that had another set of overlying rules that also unbalanced the battle, would you allow me, as an unknown player to use these? Don't worry about the details of the specific battleplan and time or war rules.  Assume that they are GW produced, and published in a way that they are intended to be played together, but are really make the game much more difficult for one side or the other.

Personally I'd be fine with that. I love some of the aspects of narrative play, under proper scenarios. I'm actually setting up a modified Path to Glory w/map campaign that uses specific battleplans/rules for different locations, with the only reference to points being that the champion must be 160 points or less (eliminates the monster riders) and their warband has 3 randomized units.

However, my friend who plays Undead had the mindset of "Why shouldn't I always use all of my models when there are no points restricting me?" when AoS came out, so he would be a bit harder to convince.