Generals Handbook = 1 style of play?

[MrCharisma]

2 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

If not for the GH, I would not being playing AoS at all. I'd already pretty much given up on it. With the GH, I'll play matched or maybe points-only play, but that's it.

+1

I struggled pre-GHB because my army doesn't stack up with wound comparisons or battalion vs battalion. I found too many power gamer opponents, which I fully appreciate want to use their expensive toys, but couldn't match it because GW still hasn't introduced any crazy awesome big toys for me.

2,000 points works for my community because it's large enough to take almost any model but for the game not to drag out too long.

In WHFB I would normally play anywhere from 1,500 to 2,500 on average, or 3,000+ with my friends and want to make a day out of the event

 

[wayniac]

Sadly, here Matched Play overtook everything else, just as I (and many others) feared it would.  If you even make mention of not using points, you get a "no thanks" at best or a lengthy rant about how points are necessary at worst.  I am probably the lone voice at my GW trying to push people to do something beyond straight points games, as a little talk goes a long way even with a lot of concerns.  It is not working out so well.  I continually talk to people who claim that AOS was "unplayable" pre-General's Handbook and how the General's Handbook "saved" the game from being a disaster, etc.

It's an uphill battle and one I don't think I can win.

Also, RE: Requirements, I think the points count as the lower level until you hit the highest; that's how I always played it.  So 1000-1999 uses Vanguard, 2000-2999 uses Battlehost, 3000+ uses Warhost.  For < 1000 we only play with 1 Battleline required for ease but really for < 1000 points I try to just push using Open Play and eyeballing it, but people usually want some "but muh points" type of thing with it.

[Cordova]

11 hours ago, Sleboda said:

To put it in another context, when the pizza company introduced their new meatless pizza, people complained that they couldn't taste the sausage in it... 

Honestly, that analogy is strained at best, and you missed the point I was making.  

[budebear]

26 minutes ago, wayniac said:

 

It's an  but really for < 1000 points I try to just push using Open Play and eyeballing it, but people usually want some "but muh points" type of thing with it.

but why? just so you can try sneak an extra 100 or so points in?

 

there is literally no point to using open play instead of points

[wayniac]

9 minutes ago, budebear said:

but why? just so you can try sneak an extra 100 or so points in?

 

there is literally bo point to using open play instead of points

Because when you're playing with only a small handful of things anyways, the points are superfluous IMHO and are essentially just there because of dogma and the thought that everything needs to have points or it's somehow imbalanced, without really adding anything to it.

Take for example someone who wants to play and they have just a Start Collecting set and another unit.  The points for that would be really wonky (likely some weird number like 740 or 820), so I would honestly just say ****** it, I'll use a comparative equivalent to their SC box (assuming I don't have the contents of the one for my respective faction), and we make a fun game out of it.  

I have found there's a lot to be had from fun games where you don't use points, if you actually you know see what your opponent has, maybe even take some time to discuss the type of game you want (this is especially true for lower points games that tend to go faster anyways, so you aren't wasting that much time by talking), often even coming up with an ad-hoc scenario.  Hell most of my AOS games have been with some weird made-up-on-the-spot scenario, I think only two have used an actual Battleplan from one of the books.  And it was a blast, when your goal is to storm a castle or seize a single point on the map, especially when you have slightly different armies that are selected within reason rather than for pure power or to game the scenario.

So no, I disagree completely that there is "no point to using open play instead of points"

[budebear]

@wayniac You arbitrarily want to guess at his and your approximate army power (aka points but you wouldnt wanna admit that), so why not just take 20 seconds yo add up the points instead?

 

Oh yeah just so you can pretend you're playing open.

 

I've memorised Bret and seraphon points so my friend could put down whatever he wants and I could match him give or take 50 points an we have a BALANCED game.

 

Now if some random player just put down a load of tomb kings against me I'd have no idea unless I'd played against them 20x before and the game would probably be decided by who accidentally had +300 points 

 

 

 

 

[wayniac]

@budebear Did you miss where I said that at such low points, the points levels are weird to figure out?  If one person has 835 points, what, do we play 1000 points?  Do we play 800 and make him drop a unit or hero?  Why bother with minutiae at such a small level of play anyways?  Also I find your tone to be fairly rude and condescending for no apparent reason other than I feel differently to you.

[Mohojoe]

It seems to be getting a bit heated here over something that is really quite simple. Competitive is for people who want assistance in creating a fair game and anyone who doesn't enjoy that ruleset or feels they dont need that assistance can play any other way they see fit. Competitive doesn't make narrative redundant and vice versa. If you feel a certain side of your hobby is not well enough represented, try championing it and showing the rest of us why it is brilliant and engaging rather than questioning the lack of its representation. [/rant]

[BaldoBeardo]

...and there we have it. After years of people complaining GW can't balance stuff properly, but now all of a sudden their assigned points values are Rosetta stones of genius.

At my local games night, I take 2000pts of army X. My opponent takes 2000pts of army Y.
Army X is designed to mow infantry, and excels at it.
Army Y is a hobby labour of love that is simply hordes of battleline infantry.

If your immediate thought is "well, you should allow your opponent to take more stuff or reduce your army somewhat" - despite this being a matched play game - good for you.
If your immediate thought is "That's Y's fault for not taking a decent army" or similar, then you need to reread the matched play battle report in the GHB.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[N_Watson]

2 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

...and there we have it. After years of people complaining GW can't balance stuff properly, but now all of a sudden their assigned points values are Rosetta stones of genius.

 

The GH points are pretty much the south coast GT comp with a few changes and battle line requirements. 

They also involved key members of our community in its testing and have opened up to the whole community for input into GH2. 

Not really sure what you are getting at? 

[BaldoBeardo]

The GH points are pretty much the south coast GT comp with a few changes and battle line requirements. 
They also involved key members of our community in its testing and have opened up to the whole community for input into GH2. 
Not really sure what you are getting at? 

Points values in isolation will always, always get broken eventually. Even the fabled fan systems.
Stormcast Paladins; Decimators are the same cost as Protectors. So I'll be fine if I take Decimators instead of Protectors against Beastclaw raiders, right?
Of course not.
*That* is the issue with the "points are fair" argument.
They have to be taken into account in context of the game.
Eyeballing should always have a place in games, regardless.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[N_Watson]

10 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Points values in isolation will always, always get broken eventually. Even the fabled fan systems.
Stormcast Paladins; Decimators are the same cost as Protectors. So I'll be fine if I take Decimators instead of Protectors against Beastclaw raiders, right?
Of course not.
*That* is the issue with the "points are fair" argument.
They have to be taken into account in context of the game.
Eyeballing should always have a place in games, regardless.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

In my opinion, half the process is building a list. If you want to be able to deal with Beastclaw and hordes, take both protectors and decimator units. 

I like thinking up lists that can deal with everything. Most enjoyable part of the hobby. I certainly spend most of my time doing this 

[BaldoBeardo]

In my opinion...
I like thinking up lists that can deal with everything... Most enjoyable part of the hobby...
I certainly spend most of my time doing this...

Exactly. You're a competitive gamer. That's part and parcel of it.
Not everyone thinks about gaming the same way. But matched play is rapidly becoming the only way of getting a game for some people, and the same old problems are returning.
Under/overpowered. Power creep. Balance. Fair. Efficiency.

Ugh.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[N_Watson]

2 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

 

Exactly. You're a competitive gamer. That's part and parcel of it.
Not everyone thinks about gaming the same way. But matched play is rapidly becoming the only way of getting a game for some people, and the same old problems are returning.
Under/overpowered. Power creep. Balance. Fair. Efficiency.

Ugh.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

 

How much effort have you put into finding the types of games that you like to play? 

If you play at a Gw store, I'm sure if you speak to the store owner, they would try and arrange something. I know mine would for sure. 

Have you tried to organise an event? This is pretty much what the competitive community had to do to organise games before GH 

 

[BaldoBeardo]

How much effort have you put into finding the types of games that you like to play? 
If you play at a Gw store, I'm sure if you speak to the store owner, they would try and arrange something. I know mine would for sure. 
Have you tried to organise an event? This is pretty much what the competitive community had to do to organise games before GH 
 

I have a good group of friends and I'm not really interested in gaming outside of that.
That's not the point I'm trying to make.

Give it a little while longer, and outside of a GW store newcomers to AoS will be planning purchases based on netlists, being laughed at for buying unit Y, and getting disheartened by the opposition's deployment rules. [emoji106]
Points aren't the problem in and of themselves.
The problem is what the competitive mindset does to a local scene if people don't occasionally step back from it and have some fun.
Or at least some Triumph and Treachery.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Soulsmith]

Personally, I haven't seen this at all. People seem to me to buy what they want to, and work from that. Only one is very competitive, but that's because he enjoys list crafting, and also because he plays sylvaneth, and likes treelords.

As has been said before, the competitive minority are always going to be more vocal online. I highly doubt we will ever see people not purchasing what they want.

[Chickenbits]

44 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

I have a good group of friends and I'm not really interested in gaming outside of that.
That's not the point I'm trying to make.

Give it a little while longer, and outside of a GW store newcomers to AoS will be planning purchases based on netlists, being laughed at for buying unit Y, and getting disheartened by the opposition's deployment rules.
Points aren't the problem in and of themselves.
The problem is what the competitive mindset does to a local scene if people don't occasionally step back from it and have some fun.
Or at least some Triumph and Treachery.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

Based on the 40k community, this isn't the case at all. People quickly find like-minded players to play with, who will play on a level they like. Friendly and tournament-players alike.

Points just means I can organise a game quickly from home with a complete stranger, without needing to bring my entire collection and spend 30 mins eyeballing our armies to make sure one player doesn't get tabled turn 2.

[N_Watson]

50 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

I have a good group of friends and I'm not really interested in gaming outside of that.
That's not the point I'm trying to make.

Give it a little while longer, and outside of a GW store newcomers to AoS will be planning purchases based on netlists, being laughed at for buying unit Y, and getting disheartened by the opposition's deployment rules.
Points aren't the problem in and of themselves.
The problem is what the competitive mindset does to a local scene if people don't occasionally step back from it and have some fun.
Or at least some Triumph and Treachery.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

I may be a competitive gamer, but still play triumph and treachery games at my GW store. I also go out of my way to try and engage with the community. I have learned of a few different clubs in my local area and I have reached out to them about getting some games with new people and I am looking forward to attending my first even later this year. You get what you put into this hobby. 

I play ironjawz, which is far from a competitive netlist army and I have yet to come across someone buying "a list" because they heard it was the best thing to buy. 

GW appear to be committed to AOS with a GH every year and FAQ's fairly regular. New releases will always shake up the meta as well. 

I don't think you or any non-competitive gamer has anything to worry about. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

I like the open play battleplans in the GHB they're great, I like the narrative ones on there too (and the Realm gate wars source books and Battletomes) and I like Matched play. I don't see why any of them are exclusive to the others. Variety is the spice of life. Some events include pretty much all 3 types of play in various rounds. It's all good

Edit: if there was a "danger" in how the game is played I'd say it would be playing the game without a Battleplan (printed or mutually agreed), which ever way you play for me it's the Battleplans that make the game.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BaldoBeardo]

Variety is the spice of life.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. Or in AoS' case, it should be.

Playing without points is still regarded by many in the same way as watching someone eat BBQ'd dog.
It's functionally the same as what they're already doing, but instinctively it's "wrong", because no real reason other than doing what you've always done.

I'd just like to see more dog on the menu at McDonald's, so at least people are aware it's there.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[mmimzie]

1 minute ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Exactly. Or in AoS' case, it should be.

Playing without points is still regarded by many in the same way as watching someone eat BBQ'd dog.
It's functionally the same as what they're already doing, but instinctively it's "wrong", because no real reason other than doing what you've always done.

I'd just like to see more dog on the menu at McDonald's, so at least people are aware it's there.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

Do we have examples of this being the case?? I haven't seen any post where some one scuffed at some one trying to talk about or enjoy narrative/open play. Or saying your a lesser being for playing points

I think the real example would be Narrative and open play are like being vegan. Everyone else eats meat (plays with points), but a minority of folks are vegan, and vegans feel the need to shove in there face thier way of life.... where meat eaters.... don't care until you try to make them go vegan....

[Ollie Grimwood]

1 minute ago, mmimzie said:

I think the real example would be Narrative and open play are like being vegan. 

You go to far Sir. Pistols or Swords? I shall inform my second. 

?

[N_Watson]

5 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Exactly. Or in AoS' case, it should be.

Playing without points is still regarded by many in the same way as watching someone eat BBQ'd dog.
It's functionally the same as what they're already doing, but instinctively it's "wrong", because no real reason other than doing what you've always done.

I'd just like to see more dog on the menu at McDonald's, so at least people are aware it's there.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

It is beginning to become apparent that your isolated community is vastly different from my immediate community and the majority of those who have taken the time to comment on this thread. 

When you say "Playing without points is still regarded by many", how many are we talking here? 

Any examples of this on these forums? 

Think you need to look into expanding your gaming group or move on.  You can't expect GW to do it all for you. There is 3 ways to play in the book GW published and in my experience, all 3 get their time. 

[BaldoBeardo]

I think the real example would be Narrative and open play are like being vegan. Everyone else eats meat (plays with points), but a minority of folks are vegan, and vegans feel the need to shove in there face thier way of life.... where meat eaters.... don't care until you try to make them go vegan....

Oh mate, that's funnier than you realise...

What you've actually just said there is that matched players *could* play any style they liked, but they *won't*.
Especially when someone else would like them to.

My concern - and the subject of the OP - is that Matched Play is becoming seen as default setting for 'official' AoS, when GW themselves are very keen to point out it is not.
Most of my gaming group are regular tournament players.
Competition is part of gaming. The problem occurs when the top of the hobby pyramid is winning, rather than playing a good game.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[N_Watson]

3 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Oh mate, that's funnier than you realise...

What you've actually just said there is that matched players *could* play any style they liked, but they *won't*.
Especially when someone else would like them to.

My concern - and the subject of the OP - is that Matched Play is becoming seen as default setting for 'official' AoS, when GW themselves are very keen to point out it is not.
Most of my gaming group are regular tournament players.
Competition is part of gaming. The problem occurs when the top of the hobby pyramid is winning, rather than playing a good game.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

The main part of the GH is to play the game the way that you want. If more people want to play matched, if anything, it suggests that the majority do not find open or narrative as fun as matched. 

It is a game after all with the main aim being to have fun.

Your saying your concern is having matched seen as the default. What in your opinion is a suitable alternative? Surely you should be able to play however you want. Just as He say in the GH?