Going over points ?

[Terry Pike]

4 minutes ago, wayniac said:

It's a guideline because the sample battle report in the handbook itself has the Stormcast army with 2040 points and the daemon army with 1980 points for a 2k point game

They have said its a guideline for their battle report, which sets a weird example itself but still don't think it should be used as reasoning as to why people should go over a 2k limit in a game. I mean they didn't actually say the limit was 2000, whereas event packs specify a 2000pt limit and players will normally agree to a fixed amount of points for a game. As above, play whatever people agree to, but for good practice stay inside the points cost, this will also result in better list writing and refining an army but making sure you get the things you really need in the list.

[wayniac]

Just now, Terry Pike said:

They have said its a guideline for their battle report, which sets a weird example itself but still don't think it should be used as reasoning as to why people should go over a 2k limit in a game. I mean they didn't actually say the limit was 2000, whereas event packs specify a 2000pt limit and players will normally agree to a fixed amount of points for a game. As above, play whatever people agree to, but for good practice stay inside the points cost, this will also result in better list writing and refining an army but making sure you get the things you really need in the list.

I cannot disagree with that

[Beardyface]

12 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Yes it does, but again their example promptly ignores that rule.  Of course even in the old days GW had no issues about being a few points over, players were always the ****** ones about it.

It doesn't matter what's in the example. The rules are expressly clear and should be followed in random matched play.

Have had just as much fun playing the narrative scenarios with just agreed no points used armies. Well worth a try.

[HobbyHammer]

I would second a lot of people on here. If you are using points and playing Matched Play, don't go over the agreed game size. Otherwise just play Open Play and balance the game by eye. There is a lot of great scenarios that do not require points at all. In fact every one of the battle plans from the campaign books are intended for you to just put some models down and play and they really do work well in this way. 

[polarbear]

Just something to talk about with your opponent first. Maybe in a friend group you're all cool +/- 100 or so. If you're playing a stranger or showing up to an organized event with rules, best to play it safe and stay within the limit.

[Jamie]

But the way I see it is why should I have to drop the battalion ? It would mean I'm 100 points under, so 100 points under or 20 over, it seems more fair to be 20 over right ? 

[Beardyface]

1 minute ago, Jamie said:

But the way I see it is why should I have to drop the battalion ? It would mean I'm 100 points under, so 100 points under or 20 over, it seems more fair to be 20 over right ? 

Everyone has this limit so fair is sticking to it in a competitive environment or against a stranger. It's the same principle as everyone must have at least 3 Battleline at 2000 points.

If you want to take what you like, roll dice and have a great time play narrative. 

[Jamie]

So this would be OK? Despite that this is the old archaon? Ive had people say I can't use him, although he shares ever keyword with the new archaon, 'apart from Everchosen' plus I get to take an extra 3 Varanguard which is good, so the large unit of 6 will be re rolling all hits and wounds and on a 2+ 3+ on the charge that means I'll wound most of the time so I don't mind 

[bottle]

4 hours ago, wayniac said:

Yes it does, but again their example promptly ignores that rule.  Of course even in the old days GW had no issues about being a few points over, players were always the ****** ones about it.

To be honest, wayniac, you're coming across as a casual-at-all-costs player with comments like that. Why is it a *cussword* to play within an agreed points limit? People enjoy to do so. And I wouldn't say the GHB points being in unit blocks makes them a guideline it just makes them non-granular. 

Non-granular!= a loose guideline, it means that simply that units are bought as a whole. That can be a loose guideline if two players want to or a strict requirement if they want to, and the tournament scene is built upon strictly adhering to the points limit to give everyone the same resources.

[wayniac]

I am casual at all costs when it comes to Warhammer (if I want a competitive game, there are a lot better ones out there).  I just feel that a lot of the problems with Warhammer in general are related to people not willing to be civil but wanting to just use some arbitrary method and let it take care of all the problems (e.g. points).  I am one of those people who felt that AOS didn't need points, but people wanted to be lazy and not talk about things so it had to be added.

I am maybe okay with it in a tournament environment, but I absolutely hate how the GHB has basically supplanted everything else as the "only" way to play AOS ever since it came out (something I knew that would happen the moment it was announced). Does it make me a bit bitter?  Sure, AOS had great potential as finally a game that MADE you talk with your opponent about what would make an enjoyable game for you both, and it got caught in the crossfire of needing to have points, which also goes to invalidate a good chunk of the game, because now that you can play with points, there's never any reason NOT to pay with points.  So all those cool Battleplans in Battletomes?  Might as well night exist, because it's not appropriate for a Pitched Battle.  Battalions from the SC boxes or boxed armies?  No points, can't use them.  Cool model like Grombrindal?  No points, can't use him.  Matched Play might have gone a long way to "balance" the game in an environment where people don't want to think about it or talk about it with their opponent (like GW does all the time), but it also took anything that was going to make AOS unique and made it generic "X point game good?" type of thing.

To quote someone else on another forum about points:  

Quote

We aren't going to see people playing all those neat scenarios, or trying out new battalions - if it doesn't have points, it doesn't exist. The entirety of playing Age of Sigmar is now points and one (or maybe two) different scenarios. It took a broad and wonderful game and boiled it down to its most boring competitive aspects - and anyone who doesn't like it is a dirty casual who likes unbalanced games because they aren't good enough to compete with the elite competitive players. Oh, and now nobody has to actually try and communicate anymore because points allow you to automate social interaction to the point where you can avoid it completely. Your opponent may as well be a computer.

All the variety - gone. All the community - gone. All that's left is a deep mistrust of the honesty and ability of our fellow players. Yay?

and now to quote myself from that other discussion on another forum:

Quote

That's the problem. It's not "points are bad" it's that points, once introduced, quickly become the "default" standard and anything that doesn't conform becomes the exception and not the rule, when Matched Play should be the exception and not the rule. It's great to have some structure for leagues or tournament play, nobody is denying that, but it doesn't have to become "the" way to play and the problem is that, by and large, it HAS become the de facto way to play games, at the cost of cutting out huge swathes of the game for another bland approach that has no soul to it.

 

[bottle]

@wayniac What you wrote seems in some ways selfish to me (as you wanting to shape the game exactly how you want to play (narrative at all costs) and not how the majority of the community wants to (I.e with points if they choose)) and, intentional or not, there are a few veiled insults in your words. 

This forum is built on the UK tournament scene so to outright dismiss the game as being not a good competitive game feels the same as telling everyone on here they are playing the wrong game for what they enjoy doing. And then you call us all lazy for enjoying a structured framework? What gives?

And for what it's worth I am of the camp where I think structure and points improves narrative gaming too. All those Battleplans can be played and enjoyed with points and in scenarios like the ritual when it says one player should have a "third extra models" it makes it much more balanced to replace that with a "third extra points". I like playing the classic narrative scenarios still, but now I do so with points.

[wayniac]

@bottle I don't disagree with you, they can be played.  But will they be played?  My experience (and keep in mind the US scene is on the whole a lot less open to ideas/communication than the UK/European scene, much to my chagrin) is no, they won't be.  If it's not a Pitched Battle, it won't get used because it could be "unbalanced", and nobody wants to play an unbalanced game, narrative be damned.  Nobody is going to bother coming up with points on the fly for a battalion that doesn't have points already done.  Nobody is going to come up with unique scenarios for a particular campaign.  

I'm not so much arguing "points suck and anyone who likes them sucks" I'm lamenting the fact that, to me and in my experience, points subsume everything else once introduced, like unchecked weeds that proceed to take over a garden.  For a tournament, weren't there other just as good (maybe better?) balancing rules before the GHB came out (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't follow the tournament scene)?  How many of those will be used now that there are "official" points from GW?  Not many, I'd guess.  Again I speak to my experience in the US with gaming, but it tends to be points or nothing.  No flexibility, no creativity, just standard, boring, "balanced" games because now there's a framework to slot everything into.

A competitive tournament/league is about the only place where I'm actually okay with using some sort of points (whether GHB points, or wounds, or fan-made points, whatever) because you often don't have the time to chat with each opponent and/or bring your entire collection just in case (so even without points, you tend to bring a set amount).  I'm more sad/frustrated that points won't just be used in leagues and tournaments, they will be (and are) used everywhere now, and the other two styles of play might as well be deleted entirely.  The second you have points based games with 'official scenarios', nothing else becomes even remotely on the radar for consideration; points become the "one true way" to play the game, and anything else is just not done anymore.

[bottle]

Can you not just ask your friends to play the narrative Battleplans with you? I go to pick-up-games with a scenario in mind usually and tell my opponent it's what I want to play - they have always agreed so far.

You think this is going to be the death of narrative play, and sure it could be if no-one is going to put in the effort to get the games in. Ask your opponent and I am sure most would be happy to do so.

And really, if none of your wargaming buddies ever want to play anything other than pitched battle scenarios and will never accommodate you - you'll have to find someone else like-minded to play those games with. Accept that if you want to play no-points fluffy scenarios all day long you are in the miniority and that's not a good enough reason for GW to leave the game structureless and force players into narrative play just to accommodate how you want to play.

[wayniac]

Perhaps.  I do think the AOS players by me are more likely to be open to that idea than the 40k players.  And I do feel you need SOME sort of structure, even if it's only a guideline (which I still think points are), so you have some kind of framework to build off of.

[bottle]

Structure is great  some of GWs best narrative games like Mordhiem and my personal fav Necromunda had the structure there for the story to take life and the games to be fun and tactical too. Good luck in getting some narrative games in. Maybe let your opponent go over the points limit to sweeten the deal  

[Turragor]

I think, perhaps ironically, you're maybe getting super stressed about an issue you haven't talked through with your play group yet?

I think that the answers you got to the idea of being overpoints were all to the question 'can I be over points in matched play' because this forum will default to matched play as bottle mentioned.

In narrative play I think the limits would be much more loose and it would always boil down to a chat with an opponent - so you can't 100% say what would be an okay limit or not, there would be no standard answer.

PS I really get the worry that no one will want to play without points. Lots of people would only see 'the point' to a game if they can use a limit that reflects the limit of a tournament they're going to enter.

So they'd see all games as practise 'for the big show'. In that sense these ppl are competitive gamers or focused on competition so you wouldn't be getting the best narrative partner with them anyway. Points or no points aren't the only thing that makes a good narrative experience.

Again, chatting with people is how you find out what they like and how they approach each game. Personally I am a fish for all waters. I'd love a points free narrative game. I also love points games.

If someone doesn't ask or chat I default to how they are approaching me, talking or even playing (if they're super competitive I might get a bit more competitive, if they're nice I get nicer) and reflect the kind of game they want.

[Arkiham]

The reason people are like that is as of hardwiring to be like that.

It takes time and understanding to learn not to be 

[Wolden Spoons]

I'm strictly a stick to the points guy but I've played scenarios and no point games since ghb. Guess you got to have the right group.

For tournament play, practice and attending absolutely under/at the limit. No question. 

For testing or casual play, do what you like. With regards to the other points packs out there they were almalgamated into the ghb so everyone has a unified rule set that I like.

[RuneBrush]

Throwing my five-penneth into the mix.  Why restrict yourself to one "points value" army?  Why not have a tournament one (strictly no more than 2000 points) and a friendly one where you tell your opponent "my army comes to 2020, are you OK with that?"

12 hours ago, wayniac said:

I'm more sad/frustrated that points won't just be used in leagues and tournaments, they will be (and are) used everywhere now, and the other two styles of play might as well be deleted entirely.

I can see where you're coming from and personally feel the community was a lot more chilled before the GHb.

Points are now the default way of playing - why? That's easy - people like to feel that they're playing a balanced game, regardless of if the scenario actually requires it.  This is something that's ingrained into most gamers psyche and pretty much every other miniature game on the market and it's something that I cannot ever see really breaking (GW tried).  I think next year will be interesting as it's been confirmed that points will be reviewed annually.

Another point is that social media and forums such as this, now play a major part in the promotion of game systems.  Think about it, how many organised events use Path to Glory?  Logistically it'd be a nightmare, plus you're going to get the most benefit playing over a period of months rather than a weekend.  Equally how many events could use Open Play successfully?  I rock up with three Blood Warriors and a Slaughterpriest and am pitted against somebody fielding two Great Unclean Ones?  I'd not want to watch that on Twitch or read about it on Facebook.  This means points gets the most view time/promotion - and thus new players automatically take this as the way to start playing

Hope that wasn't too waffly or confrontational (don't think it was).  As I've been typing this I'm currently contemplating how to run a PtG mixed with ladder campaign and promote it in the same way as we've seen things like Warlords.

[Bowlzee]

I love narrative gaming, and play regularly with a few friends. I'm working my way through a Path to Glory campaign with one, and using the narrative campaign with another. 

The club I belong to, South London Legion, however, is a very tournament focused group. All these games are GHB 2000 points strict Matched Play, usually with the tournament pack from the next up and coming tournament. 

It's all about finding players who are like minded.

[MOD] Thanks for self moderating and not turning the thread septic [/MOD]  

[Kramer]

On 10/12/2016 at 9:36 PM, wayniac said:

If it's not a Pitched Battle, it won't get used because it could be "unbalanced", and nobody wants to play an unbalanced game, narrative be damned.  Nobody is going to bother coming up with points on the fly for a battalion that doesn't have points already done.  Nobody is going to come up with unique scenarios for a particular campaign

My friends are like that. But instead of saying this is just the way it is. I designed a couple of narrative campaigns where the competition is in multiple narrative games although the games themselve are not limited by points but by the effects of the map campaign. Also noticed people value the fluff more when designing lists. 

might be worth a try.