Matched, Narrative and Open play

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Currently, GW officially recognizes three ways of playing AoS: Matched, Narrative and Open play.

I believe that this is generally a positive thing. This recognition ideally means product support for players who enjoy those different play styles, and at the very least gives us language to talk about the kinds of games we want to play in AoS. While nobody needs the permission of Games Workshop to ignore or invent any rules they like, it's still good to be able to say "I'm not really up for a matched play game with all the trimmings today, let's take things less seriously and just mess around in open play". And it's valuable that that this is recognized as a valid play style, just to pre-empt accusations of "playing the game wrong".

But it seems like in many ways we don't yet have enough language to efficiently talk about all the common play styles out there.

For example, we don't currently distinguish between matched play and competitive or tournament play very cleanly. And I think that there is a major distinction here. I believe that most AoS players want to play matched games. However, I think only a small minority wants to play competitively, with all that potentially entails. I believe most players want to make use of the points mechanic and balancing rules associated with matched play, without necessarily wanting to play very high powered games.

I think this is a crucial distinction to make, since I believe that the nature of AoS lends itself to a more casual approach. There is a huge focus on hobbying and painting for most people, and the time to build and paint a full 2000 point list is likely more than a year for most people. True competitive play, where your top priority is to win games, encourages you to cut corners when hobbying and painting as much as possible, and not to get too attached to any given list.

This tension is why I believe most players would be happiest not trying to play truly competitively, but to play a sort of causal-competitive hybrid game: You try to build your lists to be strong and do interesting things, but don't try to meta chase. Maybe you start by committing to some non-optimal decisions ("No matter what, this army will run three Steam Tanks.") and then start optimizing from that point. Once the game starts, you play to win, but not to the exclusion of your opponent's fun.

On a related note, I frequently see people who complain about certain fluffy armies not being very good being told to "just play narrative". But I don't think that's very good advice. If narrative play is supposed to be a legitimate separate play style, "narrative" should not be code for "with house rules" or "unbalanced". Just from the name, the play style should be about including story elements into your games. This is of fully compatible with using matched play points to balance your lists.

A similar bias also exists in the opposite direction, where very "gamey" play modes are perceived as "narrative" for little reason. An example would be adding a territory control element that links individual games together. Just because the campaign lasts longer than a single battle and there is a map involved, that does not necessarily make it a "narrative" game any more than a game of Risk is played "narratively".

So I guess my point is this: I think the terms "matched" and "narrative" are useful, above all from the perspective of GW as content producers. But we should be careful not to fall into the trap of perceiving them as clean, distinct categories that together make up the whole space of AoS play styles. If we want to effectively communicate about the games we want to play, we should be aware that there are a lot of things still up for discussion, even after we have already agreed to play "2000 points matched play" games.

[EMMachine]

It's an interesting topic.

Yes GW states there are three ways to play, but the borders of them are quite fluent.

Matched play is compared with "Balanced games" but it is not the only gaming system using points (even though these are most likely only a clue, how to compare units not a real rule that two units with equal points are equal as good). It's also everytime the system that still has access to stuff that is normally meant for the other two systems.

But I have the feeling that the Border of Open and Narrative play is way more fluent (where 1 way ends and the other starts).

In my oppinion "Narrative" means, that you don't max out your army on the best units existing, but give the army a theme (one you think that it could exist in the mortal realms), driving the narrative.

I have the feeling that every rule of Open and Narrative play can be played in both (and also parts of matched play)

In case of games without using points we either have stuff like the Open War Army Generator. I made a thread for this but got no reaction:

https://www.tga.community/forums/topic/27658-armybuilding-with-woundgroups-open-war-army-generator/

As well as Path to Glory, where you have the modeltables.

Matched play and Narrative are more a mindset.

Matched as a form of contest with standardized rules (Pitched Battle, Meeting Engagements, the reduced set of Realmartefacts)

While Narrative armybuilding is more storydriven. Players can create their own ruleset (compared to Pitched Battle) and you have access to basicly the full rules of the last 6 years if you want.

Edited February 3, 2021 by EMMachine

[SunStorm]

My own view (and it's just a view) is that GW would much rather people play using the slightly less rigid Open or Narrative style, in fact didn't they try that with the initial AoS 1.0?  Eventually having to go back to a more traditional points system.

Even now it doesn't always work, look at the threads where people were saying how rubbish the company is because they didn't release a proper FAQ over Christmas. The anger directed towards GW and anybody daring to try and defend them was actually quite shocking to me.

Having said that, Matched is what I try to stick to and take into account when list building or even kitbashing/converting/countsasing. It's just easier using that as a starting point and it cuts down on a lot of back and forth before games with random people. 

I wonder if a solution would be to have a 4th tier above Matched, that solely focuses on the competitive/tourny crowd?

That way, those of us that don't care about min-maxing or spending ages going through tourny data to show that one army is broken or useless can still have a framework for putting lists together, but won't affect the people that really care about that thing.

 

 

 

 

[MarkK]

I think AoS should move to the 40k crusade system for narrative games, with units gaining bonuses and injuries through games. It created a framework around the whole narrative game process, where you could have a continuing story about your army and is themed around the narrative. 

The big bonus of Crusade, is that it brought in the idea of small scale battles to start off, versus the idea of AoS basically been 2000 points all the time, even in narrative.

The AoS narrative rules never grabbed me the same way, with just a few battleplans and story ideas, where the 40k rulebook has nearly 50 pages of a narrative play section.

I have no real interest in matched play, so narrative and open are where my gaming interests would lie, and I think GW really need to seriously look at the Narrative side of AoS, because there just isn't much to talk about currently. I'm in the middle of creating a small Crusade force at the minute and can't wait to start playing again.

I'd love something similar so I could start small armies of the new Slaanesh or Undead without feeling that I won't be able to use them in a game as I probably won't want to buy 2000 points of a faction.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

For example, we don't currently distinguish between matched play and competitive or tournament play very cleanly. And I think that there is a major distinction here. I believe that most AoS players want to play matched games. However, I think only a small minority wants to play competitively, with all that potentially entails. I believe most players want to make use of the points mechanic and balancing rules associated with matched play, without necessarily wanting to play very high powered games.

I think this is a crucial distinction to make, since I believe that the nature of AoS lends itself to a more casual approach.

Think you’ve nailed it on the head here.  The way I’ve come to look at that distinction is the difference between trying to EXPLORE AoS and trying to SOLVE AoS.  Simply put I think GW has designed a system far better for exploring than solving.

For one, we don’t truly have a 2K point Match Play System.  Maybe I’m missing an exception somewhere but points jump in 10 point increments which means we actually have a 200 point system.  Simply put 200 points is not enough to cleanly and clearly distinguish “relative fair values” between units in as massively multivariate a system as AoS.  And that’s before you even start considering that each WS gets only one point value regardless of how many options to kit out that unit the WS has or how the value of that unit might differ in one faction or sub-faction vs another (given how many WS can be used straight up in multiple tomes).

40K with the option of a far closer to a true 2K point system and much more detailed pricing still struggles with this so we should not be surprised by the vehemence and virulence which every points update is met.  While the points range does technically go from 4(0) to 88(0) for non-FW the reality is that the vast majority of points fall between 10(0) and 20(0).  So really there is only 10 points worth of cost to distinguish a majority of the range,  once you recognize GW’s strong bias for even numbers that ability to differentiate is cut not quite (as there are some units at odd #s) but almost in half.  

Which is seriously limiting if you view AoS list building as a problem to SOLVE.  In other words if you are trying to maximizing the arcane algorithm so that those 200 points pump out the most of whatever X, Y and maybe Z you’re trying to build around.  If you’re a solver you start arguing that it is totally unreasonable for GW to expect you to take unit X over unit Y because for their points unit Y is clearly the superior choice, no matter how much they might like unit X for aesthetic purposes or how much they claim to want to diversify their list.

Top tier competitive play will always requiring some degree of solving and for those who enjoy it I will never begrudge them that pleasure.  But they’ll always be chasing as, again, in a massively multivariate game such as AoS in such a limited points range the balance will never achieve equilibrium nonetheless with all the changes to points and battle tomes.  So go ahead, chase meta and try and SOLVE AoS to your heart’s content, just realize it’s about the journey, not the destination as you’ll never catch the meta for more than a moment and no solution will hold for long.

What a 200 point range can do, very effectively in my opinion, is allow for a lot of exploration.  I actually find points MOST helpful in Narrative play (my primary focus in non-Covid times) as the points are “good enough” to let me set up the matches I want in an enjoyable manner for all involved.  Do I want a relatively balanced contest?  Okay, keep points relatively close and make sure sub-factions aren’t skewing things too far?  Want to create an AoS version of Thermopylae?  Okay I might take 1K points of fully buffed Hermdar Hearthguard Berzerkers with Support units but 2K of Khorne Mortals (no summoning) and play it out on a narrow playing field.

But I’ve also found the points are more than adequate for casual Match Play games where players want to explore lists as they provide an easy point of reference to frame the conversation. For example, when we were starting up Zoom League it became apparent that the only way to really scale up to 2K was if everyone agreed to bring a MONSTER or two.  It was a simple text along the lines of “2K but at least 400 points in Behemoths” that everyone was able to understand and resulted in no lists being too unbalanced.

And I agree that GW is probably biased more towards the explore than the solve.  I think this comes from a desire to further distinguish from 40k but I also think fantasy lends itself more to that style anyway.

[Angela]

I mostly play matched play games and I think we have the language needed. I usually (and now due to COVID, only) play my husband and we usually decide beforehand if we want to use a "competitive" or a "fun/fluffy list".   Sometimes we are even more specific, as Beer and Pretzels mentioned above. We have decided to play games that are 2500 pts including 2 Behomeths, or a 1000 point list with a Behometh added afterwards.  The language is there, you just have to communicate with your opponents before list building so everyone can have fun.  It is a game. Games should be fun.

[Kadeton]

I think GW really needs to re-think the "3 ways to play" idea entirely.

When your options for ways to play are "Reasonably balanced", "A bit less balanced and with wonky missions" and "Unbalanced", then most people will gravitate towards the "reasonably balanced" option. Even when they're not competitively-minded, players are generally looking for a game that feels more or less fair.

The first step to addressing this would be to ensure that all the ways to play use the same rules. No more "matched play only" rules, or similar - something is either a rule or it's not. As soon as you divide your game into two or more rulesets, one of those will become the dominant or "default" way to play, and the others will die out.

Then, make the ways to play actually different ways to engage with the game. A Crusade-style campaign is a genuine alternative to one-off pickup games, for instance - that's the kind of distinction that works. A skirmish version would also be a good "way to play" if Warcry didn't already exist as a separate game.

You shouldn't (in theory) need to make tournament play any different from pickup games. If you do, it's because you've stuffed up the balance of the game - just work harder to address that instead.

13 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Simply put 200 points is not enough to cleanly and clearly distinguish “relative fair values” between units in as massively multivariate a system as AoS.

I don't agree with this at all. Malifaux (just as an example) only has 50 points in a standard tournament game, with most models in the 4-8 point range, and has much better balance than AoS. More granularity in points is almost never the answer, simply because a unit's value can't be quantified in isolation - it's the interaction with other units (both friendly and enemy) that establish its "true" value in a game.

Instead, I'd look at things like points penalties for multiples of the same unit. Bringing a bunch of one type of model is a pretty good indicator that you're building an army based around getting extra value out of that specific unit, or simply that the unit is itself under-valued - so make the points reflect that focus. It wouldn't have to be much: perhaps +20 points for the second one, +40 points for the third, and so on. That would do far more to address the overwhelming efficiency of tournament lists than haggling over whether a 180-point unit should actually be 181 or 182 points.

[EMMachine]

The problem is. Putting Pitched Battle rules on anything basicly can kill the lore.

For example Stormcast can have Extremis Chambers (only with Stardrakes and Dracoths) or a Sacrosanct Chamber led by a Knight Incantor not having a Lord Arcanum.

Both are not playable in Matched Play. the first because it doesn't have Battleline. The second only has Battleline with a Lord Arcanum.

The problem I have Seen with WHFB and WH40k is. If their is only one ruleset. It is really the only way to play because nobody will say "we will ignore rule  x or y".

It's netter if you can say I add x or y instead of removing. People can rede their campaign ruleset without using any matched play rules, using Parts of it and writing other parts themself or using the Pitched Battle or Meeting Engagements rule entirely and add stuff.

All of this without writing a single time "do not use this rule..." what you are forced to do if their is only one ruleset. (we had that problem with the Battleplans in 1 edition where every battleplan without sudden death had to state. "do not use the corerules victory condition"). And stuff like Path to Glory or the Solorules would be way more bloated with "do not use ..." rules. Because they don't use the points or armybuilding from pitched battle).

Making the rules like a toolbox help people Experiment with them

Edit: we even see this in matched play. Pitched Battles and Meeting Engagement share many rules, but still both are their own thing without referring to the other one, without mentioning that the unit limits of one system occur in the other system. This is the way how we should handle narrative as well instead of (we use pitched battle rules but not use this and that).

Edited February 4, 2021 by EMMachine

[Kadeton]

Toolbox rules are great in theory, but the need that they fail to address is setting consistent expectations. Everything else is in the domain of house rules, or a problem to be addressed separately.

With multiple rulesets, or a toolbox of options, the Extremis Chamber army of Stardrakes and Dracoths will be valid... sometimes. This might encourage people to build it, and they will then be disappointed when nobody wants to play their particular set of rules. In a consistent ruleset, it will never be valid, so you always know that if you want to bring it, you need to discuss that rule exception (i.e. a house rule) with your opponent in advance. And if GW ever wants it to be valid, they can just rewrite the Stormcast battletome to allow that build.

Also, I'm not sure about your meta, but in mine there's very little experimentation with the rules. From the discussions on here, I'd say that's fairly consistent across the board. People generally just want certainty that they can show up to a game and have a good time, and they choose (by default) the ruleset that most consistently delivers that experience. I've never heard anyone in my local group talking about building an army for anything other than the Matched Play rules - even if they decide to dabble in using some of the Narrative missions, they'll still use a Matched Play army to do that.

No  matter what, one ruleset will always "win" and become the de facto standard, because things go much smoother if everyone has the same expectations. It therefore saves everyone a lot of time if you just define the standard from the outset, rather than presenting multiple standards and letting the playerbase figure it out.

I'm not suggesting any instances of "Do not use this rule..." It's not necessary. From your examples: Meeting Engagements don't need to use different rules to Pitched Battles; Narrative battles can be played just fine using the Matched Play rules; if all your battleplans are saying "Don't use a rule" then that rule simply shouldn't be a Core Rule, or you should design your battleplans differently. These are all example of unnecessary differences which add no value.

In general, GW really needs to step away from constantly making exceptions to the rules, and instead either work with them as they are, or change them. Consistency is the best approach.

[Beastmaster]

I’d hate it to discuss the details of which rules to use before every game, and to have to remember them during the game. It’s the opposite of beginner friendly.

[EMMachine]

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

Toolbox rules are great in theory, but the need that they fail to address is setting consistent expectations. Everything else is in the domain of house rules, or a problem to be addressed separately.

With multiple rulesets, or a toolbox of options, the Extremis Chamber army of Stardrakes and Dracoths will be valid... sometimes. This might encourage people to build it, and they will then be disappointed when nobody wants to play their particular set of rules. In a consistent ruleset, it will never be valid, so you always know that if you want to bring it, you need to discuss that rule exception (i.e. a house rule) with your opponent in advance. And if GW ever wants it to be valid, they can just rewrite the Stormcast battletome to allow that build.

The strange thing with extremis is, that they were their own thing having their own Battletome (in a time where matched play haven't existed yet, but were forgotten later, when Matched Play was introduced). In case of Campaigns you are basicly forced to discuss the ruleset (because you're normally don't play campaigns against random people, but in a group that gets the rules before the campaign starts. So it is no problem when the campaign ruleset differs from the Pitched Battle Ruleset. Forcing people that they have to use specific models in every game so the list even works is the worst thing so can do in a campaign because those forces models are often singular leaders, and where you would often have a subordinate officer (if you for example would have 1 army that is split into 3 (we had something like this with a Vanguard Auxilliary Chamber in Blightwar where the chamber was divided into a force led by the Lord Aquilor, 1 lead by Neave Blacktalon and one by a Knight Venator, the written story only followed Naeves part, but 2 of the 3 lists would be illigal in matched play because you need the Lord Aquilor that an Vanguard chamber even has Battleline.

Matched play basicly forces people to play unrealistic lists in some situations, because it is meant as a serious Sportsevent (a thing GW games basicly never were meant to be).

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

Also, I'm not sure about your meta, but in mine there's very little experimentation with the rules. From the discussions on here, I'd say that's fairly consistent across the board. People generally just want certainty that they can show up to a game and have a good time, and they choose (by default) the ruleset that most consistently delivers that experience. I've never heard anyone in my local group talking about building an army for anything other than the Matched Play rules - even if they decide to dabble in using some of the Narrative missions, they'll still use a Matched Play army to do that.

I don't have a meta. My last two games were sologames.

And before that my last real game was 2017. The thing is, I don't like meta because it often contredicts how a list should look like in the lore. I simply do not play if the list is only based on maxing out, because it is a waste of time for me (never had an active group, so playing in a GW would be the only way to play and I had stuff like Archaon and 30 Bloodletters on 1000 Points in my first game).

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

I'm not suggesting any instances of "Do not use this rule..." It's not necessary. From your examples: Meeting Engagements don't need to use different rules to Pitched Battles; Narrative battles can be played just fine using the Matched Play rules; if all your battleplans are saying "Don't use a rule" then that rule simply shouldn't be a Core Rule, or you should design your battleplans differently. These are all example of unnecessary differences which add no value.

So how would you add the restrictions that Meeting engagements has 4 units minimum (spread through 3 Contingents) but you only need 1 Battleline, that you can only use 1 Endless Spell instead of 2, that you can only use 1 ally unit instead of the 1/4 rule), and that another list of Battleplans is used? (+ the smaller board with 30"-36" by 40"-48" instead of  48" by 72"

For all this you would need a "do not use" rule or meeting engagements basicly wouldn't exist as a ruleset.

Edit: also here an interesting statement of @Popisdead from the this thread that hits the nail:

On 2/2/2021 at 8:08 PM, Popisdead said:

You can do this now.  

GW supports tournament play with Matched Points as a focus.  Tournaments drive competitive play, people search out competitive builds to use locally in games either tournaments or pick-up games.  The threads here are driven mostly by more competitive players (not narrative or older gamers who have enjoyed lore and creativity).  

Nothing is stopping anyone from using the original Warscrolls, older battalions, playing in any manner.  

The problem is the player base.  Have you seen anyone play Cities of Death in 40k?  No cause a few vocal power gamers ruined it by complaining about how you can just do one things (keep space marine army in reserve) and killed off people trying it.  Same with Storm of Magic.  "oh you can put a HE dragon mage on the balewind and ruin the game?  never playing it".  I played Storm of Magic and had a hoot.  

Also AoS is hugely immersive, the first year was primarily community driven work and GW picked up on that and well,.. they didn't curate it very well.

Vince and Rob had a really good chat involving other game systems as well on a recent Honest WArgamer (you can find this on youtube most likely).  Vince mentions how AoS could be much more and akin to what you are saying.  I've always seen the hindrance as power gamers/WAAC as they tend to get vocal, not wanting change they cannot control (i.e. loser game play, more narrative fun).

Edited February 4, 2021 by EMMachine

[Maddpainting]

5 hours ago, Kadeton said:

I think GW really needs to re-think the "3 ways to play" idea entirely.

When your options for ways to play are "Reasonably balanced", "A bit less balanced and with wonky missions" and "Unbalanced", then most people will gravitate towards the "reasonably balanced" option. Even when they're not competitively-minded, players are generally looking for a game that feels more or less fair.

 

History lesson! 

As someone that is and has been extremely active in forums, topics, groups, etc.. in 40k, whfb, and aos for the past 20yrs. I can tell you GW really NEEDED the "3 ways to play".

Before GW came out with the 3 ways to play there was always, and i mean ALWAYS heated topics/discussions about the "right way to play" Lore nuts, hobbyist, casauly, comp, people just wanting balanced games, etc... all had 100's of pages of fighting as to what the right way is to playa nd why its their way. People would get vigorously angry if you didn't like it their way even if you are not playing with them. You can be at 1 table and them at another and they would get made at you for playing a comp game b.c they are a fluff player and it was even worst online. This was a topic brought up over and over again, and each time was a ****** show.

When GW first came out with the 3 ways to play (in 40k first) it completely shifted the mentality of all players, suddenly these insanely abundant toxic topics slow to a crawl, after about 1/2 a year almost all the toxic was gone b.c their was official ways to happily play how you wanted. 

Match play being showed at first as a way to play "more balanced and farer games" as oppose to "tournament games" was very important, even more so than the 3 ways to play. B.c tournament players were looked down on and players that wanted a match play rules set was through into with the tournament players. People hated tournament players. They were seen as tryhards, WAAC, didn't enjoy the game, etc... it was a nightmare trying to get someone to understand "Hey, i just want a game that we both can try to bring fun, strong lists to see how can win and be equals about it. Like a friendly competition in chess, track, football, etc..." but they still would just hate you. 

GW put into match play the option to do events but knew it needed to be separated, this is why they always had little extras here and there for events, like Agendas, Aux objectives, etc.. Once you agreed to Agendas back in 2017 or Aux in 2020, etc.. it felt more official. 

GW IMO has done an extremely good job at seeing the reactions of the players from a windowed position, understanding the problems and fixing them in an actual elegant and meaningful way.

Finally, GW always says "ask you opponent for the type of game you want" if you and your opponent can not understand if 1 player wants a balanced game and the other test for a tournament, then that is a communications problem not a GW problem. Remember, this is a social game, be social to your opponents. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by Maddpainting
Grammar, english is hard for me.

[EMMachine]

@Maddpainting

So much this. I was playing 40k since 4. Edition and had a gaminggroup fokussed on Tournament play.

The Meta vom back then basicly has burned itself into my mind. And I hated the meta, because basicly 3/4 of the units became something we called a "codex Leiche" ein germany (don't know if something called a "codex corpse " was a thing in other languages). The goal was playing the minimum of core units and trying to get as many units into the game that were mostly immun against weapons not having strength 7 at 8 at least.

And here is the point, you are a new player, their is one ruleset, you have the experience of your own gaming group and the internet is full of Tournament netlists (+ everyone is trying to convert your list into a netlist). How big is the chance that you realize that games could work another way instead of swallowing the situation, becoming one of them and teach the same stuff to the next new person.

This is as well one of the reasons, why I like it that their are 3 ways to play in the rules now. GW is showing that their is more than a single solution. It basicly needs people to show the other ways, that they even become prominent in the first place.

+ my gaming group broke apart in the time between 5. and 6. Edition 40k because some of them only had their 1750 Points tournamentlists and buying stuff for the new meta would have meant to basicly buy a new army (so I have seen all the bad things "meta" can do.

35 minutes ago, Maddpainting said:

When GW first came out with the 3 ways to play (in 40k first) it completely shifted the mentality of all players, suddenly these insanely abundant toxic topics slow to a crawl, after about 1/2 a year almost all the toxic was gone b.c their was official ways to happily play how you wanted. 

This statement makes me actually wonder. I thought the first introduction of the 3 ways was AoS with the first generals Handbook, and 40k starting with it in 8. Edition When was the starting point in 40k.

[Maddpainting]

12 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

@Maddpainting

So much this. I was playing 40k since 4. Edition and had a gaminggroup fokussed on Tournament play.

The Meta vom back then basicly has burned itself into my mind. And I hated the meta, because basicly 3/4 of the units became something we called a "codex Leiche" ein germany (don't know if something called a "codex corpse " was a thing in other languages). The goal was playing the minimum of core units and trying to get as many units into the game that were mostly immun against weapons not having strength 7 at 8 at least.

And here is the point, you are a new player, their is one ruleset, you have the experience of your own gaming group and the internet is full of Tournament netlists (+ everyone is trying to convert your list into a netlist). How big is the chance that you realize that games could work another way instead of swallowing the situation, becoming one of them and teach the same stuff to the next new person.

This is as well one of the reasons, why I like it that their are 3 ways to play in the rules now. GW is showing that their is more than a single solution. It basicly needs people to show the other ways, that they even become prominent in the first place.

+ my gaming group broke apart in the time between 5. and 6. Edition 40k because some of them only had their 1750 Points tournamentlists and buying stuff for the new meta would have meant to basicly buy a new army (so I have seen all the bad things "meta" can do.

This statement makes me actually wonder. I thought the first introduction of the 3 ways was AoS with the first generals Handbook, and 40k starting with it in 8. Edition When was the starting point in 40k.

AoS did do it first, but not an apparent 3 ways in PR. It was kind of brush off to the side. Many players didn't even read or cared about it as AoS at the time was still growing. AoS is the father of it, but 40k nurtured it.

Edited February 4, 2021 by Maddpainting

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

20 hours ago, MarkK said:

I think AoS should move to the 40k crusade system for narrative games, with units gaining bonuses and injuries through games. It created a framework around the whole narrative game process, where you could have a continuing story about your army and is themed around the narrative.

I agree. I think in general slow-growing an AoS army is the more fun way to get into the game. I see people that buy a huge amount of models right from the start and then get overwhelmed by all the building and painting all the time. I was one of those people at some point. Pitching a narrative approach where you can grow your army by a box of models per month would be a very good way to make the game more beginner friendly.

 

20 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Think you’ve nailed it on the head here.  The way I’ve come to look at that distinction is the difference between trying to EXPLORE AoS and trying to SOLVE AoS.  Simply put I think GW has designed a system far better for exploring than solving.

This ties into the game design idea of different player profiles. For those who don't know, there exists a system of player profiles that tries to capture different things players want from a game. It divides players into Timmies, Johnnies and Spikes (although this is just a rough categorization, most players will have aspects of all three).

Timmies most value interesting experiences in games. They often like to see big, impressive stuff happening. They like big damage and huge, stompy monsters. Sons of Behemat and Mawtribes are Timmy armies.

Johnnies most value self-expression. They like complex rules and combos. Although these players might also value the artistic side of AoS and creative list building. Cities of Sigmar is a Johnny army.

Spikes most value winning. They like powerful rules and armies. Pre-nerf Petrifex is a very spikey army.

 

I believe, by it's nature, AoS is most suited for Johnny players, which would match up with the idea of exploring AoS. The quickly changing metagame and difficulty of switching armies (both in terms of time and money) makes the game less attractive for those that mainly care about winning. However, the possibility of not just expressing your self through the cool lists and interactions you found, but also through your conversions and paint jobs should make the game more attractive to Johnnies.

 

1 hour ago, Maddpainting said:

As someone that is and has been extremely active in forums, topics, groups, etc.. in 40k, whfb, and aos for the past 20yrs. I can tell you GW really NEEDED the "3 ways to play".

Before GW came out with the 3 ways to play there was always, and i mean ALWAYS heated topics/discussions about the "right way to play" Lore nuts, hobbyist, casauly, comp, people just wanting balanced games, etc... all had 100's of pages of fighting as to what the right way is to playa nd why its their way. People would get vigorously angry if you didn't like it their way even if you are not playing with them. You can be at 1 table and them at another and they would get made at you for playing a comp game b.c they are a fluff player and it was even worst online. This was a topic brought up over and over again, and each time was a ****** show.

That's also one of the big benefits I see from making the different game modes official.

You see this kind of discussion in all kinds of game. Even non-competitive ones like DnD: Some people believe you are playing that game wrong if you give your character the best stats for their class (Fighter with 18 STR, 16 CON). Others believe the exact opposite, they think you are doing things wrong if you purposefully build your character non-optimally. An official statement along the lines of "You can do both and not do anything wrong. It depends on the kind of game you want." really works wonders in these situations.

What I still think we are missing in AoS is the recognition that playing matched play games at less than 100% full power is valid. In my opinion, AoS has pretty good balance when we look at lists at a power level of 7 to 8 out of 10. Balance at the very top of competitive play is wonky. But at a not hyper-optimized level (some pet unit choices, some rule of cool, but still trying to win), I think you can generally have good games between pretty much any two armies. But this requires a play group that can self-regulate, where more competitive players hold back to a degree and more casual players put in more effort than just bringing one of each unit in the army.

Personally, that kind of power level is the sweet spot for me. You can still explore interesting interactions in the rules that exist and build fun and flavourful lists that even feel pretty strong. But you avoid scenarios where games are just unwinnable from the start for one player.

[Kadeton]

2 hours ago, EMMachine said:

In case of Campaigns you are basicly forced to discuss the ruleset (because you're normally don't play campaigns against random people, but in a group that gets the rules before the campaign starts. So it is no problem when the campaign ruleset differs from the Pitched Battle Ruleset.

For sure. This is the very definition of "house rules". It doesn't need official support.

2 hours ago, EMMachine said:

Matched play basicly forces people to play unrealistic lists in some situations, because it is meant as a serious Sportsevent (a thing GW games basicly never were meant to be).

Unrealistic or not, the armies that are possible in Matched Play are (in my opinion) the only ones that a new player should stumble into. Having a new player build something like an Extremis Chamber force and then not be able to actually play it is the worst possible outcome for the game.

More experienced players with regular opponents are more than capable of arranging house rules to accommodate whatever the heck they want amongst themselves. But a list built using the Core Rules should be valid anywhere.

2 hours ago, EMMachine said:

I don't have a meta. My last two games were sologames. And before that my last real game was 2017.

Fair enough. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that your experience of the game is not the "normal" or "intended" experience.

The good news is, when you're playing a solo game, you and your opponent will always agree on any house rules you want to use. You literally don't have to care about the "official" rules in any way. The rules only exist to create consistency of expectation between players.

2 hours ago, EMMachine said:

So how would you add the restrictions that Meeting engagements has 4 units minimum (spread through 3 Contingents) but you only need 1 Battleline, that you can only use 1 Endless Spell instead of 2, that you can only use 1 ally unit instead of the 1/4 rule), and that another list of Battleplans is used? (+ the smaller board with 30"-36" by 40"-48" instead of  48" by 72"

Let's leave aside the topic of "Should meeting engagements exist?" for the moment.

You know the breakout box that says how many points, Battleline, Leaders, Behemoths, allies, etc you need for a battle-forged army? Just add another column to that box for Meeting Engagements. Everything else is scenario rules, not Core Rules.

2 hours ago, EMMachine said:

Edit: also here an interesting statement of @Popisdead from the this thread that hits the nail

I'm not sure which bit you wanted to focus on here, but the bit that stands out to me is this:

2 hours ago, EMMachine said:

Have you seen anyone play Cities of Death in 40k?  No cause a few vocal power gamers ruined it by complaining about how you can just do one things (keep space marine army in reserve) and killed off people trying it.  Same with Storm of Magic.  "oh you can put a HE dragon mage on the balewind and ruin the game?  never playing it".

I was never exposed to "power gamers" talking about Cities of Death and "ruining it", neither with Storm of Magic. Nevertheless, I never played them. The reason? They simply weren't the standard way to play, and it was far easier to find people who just wanted standard games. Power gamers weren't the problem - non-standard rulesets were.

1 hour ago, Maddpainting said:

Match play being showed at first as a way to play "more balanced and farer games" as oppose to "tournament games" was very important, even more so than the 3 ways to play.

Honestly, I think this was all they really needed to do. The issue wasn't needing to codify different ways to play, it was just to reduce the toxicity of the player base. Promoting fairness and sportsmanship over winning, as well as just flushing out a lot of the entrenched toxic players and bringing in new blood, was definitely needed... but I don't see how the Three Ways helped, honestly.

1 hour ago, Maddpainting said:

Finally, GW always says "ask you opponent for the type of game you want" if you and your opponent can not understand if 1 player wants a balanced game and the other test for a tournament, then that is a communications problem not a GW problem.

This is absolutely the right answer.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

7 hours ago, Kadeton said:

I don't agree with this at all. Malifaux (just as an example) only has 50 points in a standard tournament game, with most models in the 4-8 point range, and has much better balance than AoS. More granularity in points is almost never the answer, simply because a unit's value can't be quantified in isolation - it's the interaction with other units (both friendly and enemy) that establish its "true" value in a game.

Instead, I'd look at things like points penalties for multiples of the same unit. Bringing a bunch of one type of model is a pretty good indicator that you're building an army based around getting extra value out of that specific unit, or simply that the unit is itself under-valued - so make the points reflect that focus. It wouldn't have to be much: perhaps +20 points for the second one, +40 points for the third, and so on. That would do far more to address the overwhelming efficiency of tournament lists than haggling over whether a 180-point unit should actually be 181 or 182 points.

Not terribly familiar with Malifaux but my basic understanding is it has a fraction of the unit types of AoS.  And, to me at least, both the numerator (point spread) and the denominator (number of units that need to be accommodated by that point spread) both matter.  A simple example from an army I don’t play but play against is Gors in BoC.  The BoC thread is filled with commentary on how there just isn’t enough point differential between Ungors and Bestigors to create enough “value” for Gors in a list.  So simply put the more units you need to account for and differentiate the more difficult a narrow spread becomes.  AoS is cramming a whole lot of units in between 100-200 points.  There are well over 100 units just in Chaos alone (stopped counting in GH at 100 and still had most of Skaven and StD to go...)

Where I do think we are in agreement though is the issue of quantifying value in isolation.  I think the points system is fine for exploration because it is a “good enough” guide to result in most exploration games being reasonably balanced with minimal communication.  I don’t think, given how massively multivariate AoS is with numerous different feedback loops, that any point system could be refined enough to satisfy the solvers.

As far as penalty for multiple units this runs into both battleline and breadth of faction issues.  Not that there aren’t questions that can’t be raised about those but some factions only have one baseline battleline (to which at most you can add 1 more via your General or taking a sub-faction).  So I’m not sure it’s the indicator you think it is.  Regardless though it is just evidence that you can’t “just” change one aspect of the game without making changes in a bunch of other areas.

[EMMachine]

52 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Let's leave aside the topic of "Should meeting engagements exist?" for the moment.

You know the breakout box that says how many points, Battleline, Leaders, Behemoths, allies, etc you need for a battle-forged army? Just add another column to that box for Meeting Engagements. Everything else is scenario rules, not Core Rules.

The problem is, you basicly want to make the "Matched Play Rules" or better state "Pitched Battle rules"  as corerules. That way, everything would become core rules including the stuff you call "scenario rules". (and it is not as bad as in the first edition, where matched play had many rules that are corerules now in 2. Edition).

52 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

For sure. This is the very definition of "house rules". It doesn't need official support.

The point is. Breaking off the meta needs way more creativity than taking a fixed ruleset. Maybe the toolbox GW gives us should simply be inspiration for us. Do you think something like the Path to Glory Overhaul: Road to Renown Edition would have been created if GW never had released the incarnations of Path to Glory:

My guess is no.

GW made Skirmish rules 2017, and here we had rules for Hinterlands. Sadly Skirmish was last time used as White Dwarf rules and later was taken made way for Warcry.

The Save with the "Anvil of Apotheosis". Instead of looking through warscrolls to make a character GW gave us a tool how it could look like to create your own charactertype.  It's a basic concept, but maybe the community can build upon, after GW is only doing out of the Box characters into the battletome.

The thing is, if something hasn't the "official" stamp on it, it is more rarely played.

52 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

I was never exposed to "power gamers" talking about Cities of Death and "ruining it", neither with Storm of Magic. Nevertheless, I never played them. The reason? They simply weren't the standard way to play, and it was far easier to find people who just wanted standard games. Power gamers weren't the problem - non-standard rulesets were.

Power gamers were my main experience in 40k as well as Fantasybattle, it's really not fun. When basicly games are only training for the next tournament, and everything else is a waste of time. I remember that my group started a planetary empire campaign and lost interest after round 1 because nothing happend on the map.

I have multiple WHFB campaigns (all based on the Mighty Empire rules and changed later). I don't think that we have ever played a map based campaign if GW hadn't made the box, but many still used maxed out armies (so you would have to change the rules that those lists wouldn't have worked .

 

In the end houserules wouldn't exist if GW wouldn't give inspiration for it (with White Dwarf other other publications).

Edited February 4, 2021 by EMMachine

[azdimy]

The old guard at GW meant aos to be played only as open or narrative play at launch. It s the community at large that created match play because that is what they wanted to balance their games ( ie a point system)

The community mostly uses point even for narrative games. I m not really sure what open play is nowadays. I scroll through the ghb sections and it s a bunch of sidegames within aos really, a compilation of white dwarf articles, back in the first aos, all it was in the section was a multiplayer system with some scenario for that system. Imo This could be integral to the match play or narrative section.I do believe aos will follow 40k and there will be two ways to  play in the future. Based on ghb content in the open play section. I d say that is already the case

[Kadeton]

24 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Not terribly familiar with Malifaux but my basic understanding is it has a fraction of the unit types of AoS.

Malifaux has somewhere around 600 unique unit types. I haven't been able to find a full list, so I'm not sure of the exact number.

14 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

The point is. Breaking off the meta needs way more creativity than taking a fixed ruleset. Maybe the toolbox GW gives us should simply be inspiration for us.

Sure, maybe. But most people aren't looking for "inspiration", they're just looking for a consistent game experience. You said it yourself:

14 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

The thing is, if something hasn't the "official" stamp on it, it is more rarely played.

The corollary to the above is that just putting the "official" stamp on something doesn't mean it will get played. I've never seen an Open Play game of AoS even though it's an official way to play, for instance, but I've seen hundreds of Matched Play games.

Even when there are multiple competing "official" standards, one will always win out eventually and become the de facto single standard in all but the niche edge cases. That's because having a single standard just saves a lot of headaches.

You could build an extensive toolbox of rules that could be mixed-and-matched to build whatever ruleset you liked, but I guarantee that after a few months, maybe a year, the player base would reach a broad consensus on the "correct" way to play the game, which would then become the standard.

14 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

In the end houserules wouldn't exist if GW wouldn't give inspiration for it (with White Dwarf other other publications).

House rules absolutely would exist, they exist for literally every set of game rules ever played.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

10 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Malifaux has somewhere around 600 unique unit types. I haven't been able to find a full list, so I'm not sure of the exact number.

Cool.  I’ll have to look deeper.  When I went to their store didn’t see that wide of a selection but maybe was looking in wrong place.

[Maddpainting]

And Malifuax died and had to completely redo their entirety of rules, units, etc.. for 2.0 b.c how unbalanced it was. It was so bad many places just dropped it.  My Local was one of the largest groups in the world for it, with 40+ players and we also got a couple early releases to test. Not a single player I know of still plays it. 

So I would not use Malifaux as an example for balance.....

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

15 minutes ago, Maddpainting said:

I would not use Malifaux as an example for balance.....

Shame.  Does look very cool but found plenty of threads complaining about balance for it as I started digging.  In any non-static game balance seems to be a chimera.  Chasing it just gets more difficult as variables are added.

[Greybeard86]

On 2/3/2021 at 1:49 PM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

we don't currently distinguish between matched play and competitive or tournament play very cleanly.

I think this is a crucial distinction to make, since I believe that the nature of AoS lends itself to a more casual approach. There is a huge focus on hobbying and painting for most people, and the time to build and paint a full 2000 point list is likely more than a year for most people. True competitive play, where your top priority is to win games, encourages you to cut corners when hobbying and painting as much as possible, and not to get too attached to any given list.

I agree. However, GW shifts the meta very hard constantly. To support a hobby friendly yet "competitive" playstyle, we need stability.

I suspect, though, that stability does not move product fast enough (miniatures and books).

[NinthMusketeer]

3 hours ago, EMMachine said:

The point is. Breaking off the meta needs way more creativity than taking a fixed ruleset. Maybe the toolbox GW gives us should simply be inspiration for us. Do you think something like the Path to Glory Overhaul: Road to Renown Edition would have been created if GW never had released the incarnations of Path to Glory:

My guess is no.

You are entirely correct. RtR exists after several years of building up house rules and changes to Path to Glory, and that only happened because the basic concept of PtG was so much fun. If GW had never created PtG I would never have had a starting point to work from.