Generals Handbook = 1 style of play?

[BaldoBeardo]

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? 

The alternative to Matched Play being the default is *not* narrative/open.
The option should be "whatever you want".

That's actually what this whole thread was about.

Not what is better or worse.




Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[N_Watson]

2 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

The alternative to Matched Play being the default is *not* narrative/open.
The option should be "whatever you want".

That's actually what this whole thread was about.

Not what is better or worse.




Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

It has already been pointed out to you in this thread, by a number of people, that matched isn't the default. From what I see, most people buy the models that they want and then arrange a game with like minded gamers should they ever choose to play a game. My introductory game, after handbook release was 4 warscrolls vs 4 warscrolls with my GW store manager. 

I typically take enough to field a 2000 point army to my GW vets night. Sometimes I haven't arranged a game, and I just go for some banter. We typically have one table where some younger guys (teenagers) play some random game with either loads of scenery or a fort of some sort. They can be playing on that table for 3 to 4 hours with their own made up battle plan or one they read in a tome. The other table is normally booked at 4 and 7pm for some 40k or AOS game. Then sometimes we do massive 3 to 6 player triumph and treachery games from the GH if there is enough people. 

If anything, Matched play games are the ones that we arrange in advance over whatsapp/facebook and not the default. 

[BaldoBeardo]

Didn't realise this was all about me...?
It's also been said in this thread - and I'm only paraphrasing slightly here - that wanting to play open/narrative means you want to be able to cheat.

Look, matched play is like a well run club private club in Vegas. Everyone knows the rules, and it's enjoyable because it's safe.

Open is that backstreet club in Berlin.
You have to put your trust in people you may not know that well, and it'll probably feel weird to start with, but if you go in with an open mind you might surprise yourself at how much fun it is. Or, it might be terrible.
But at least you tried something different.

I've run out of tortured analogies now, but it's been fun. [emoji106]



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Squirrelmaster]

39 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

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.

Yep, as a "matched" player myself, I can attest that I could, indeed play any other style of AoS, but I won't.

Because I don't want to.

I don't care if you want me to. I'm not going to play a game I don't want to play, just for your enjoyment.

It's not just that I prefer matched play to open or narrative play, it's that I actually prefer not playing at all to open or narrative play. It's not a case of me refusing to play something we'll both enjoy because there's something else I would enjoy more, it's that you're asking me to waste my time on a game I know I will not enjoy, just for your amusement.

And yes, I have tried open and narrative play. About a dozen times. I didn't enjoy it. You're not asking me to "keep an open mind, try something new, you might enjoy it", you're asking me to "keep and open mind, waste even more time trying something you've already wasted dozens of hours on, because maybe you just haven't had the right experience yet and if you keep doing it eventually you'll start to like it".

Please don't insult me by implying that if I didn't enjoy it, that must because I wasn't being "open-minded" enough. If nothing else, that's a blatant logical fallacy and not worth my time.

If you don't want to play "matched", that's fine, it just means neither of us is interested in the game the other wants to play, so we can both go and find different opponents, or something else to spend our time on.

 

9 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

The alternative to Matched Play being the default is *not* narrative/open.
The option should be "whatever you want".

Have you considered that maybe for most people, "whatever you want" is matched play? I mean if it is (or does become) the "default", wouldn't that pretty much prove that it's what people want? Why else would it become the default option?

 

14 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

That's actually what this whole thread was about.

Not what is better or worse.

On 14/01/2017 at 6:56 PM, pez5767 said:

I know when the book released a lot of people (myself included) were worried that once the GH dropped,  points-based match play would be the only style of play getting used.  Certainly, from scanning the forums here, it looks like those fears have come to fruition in terms of all AoS games being conceptually prep for tournaments.

(emphasis mine)

Sorry, but that seems like pretty negative wording from the OP for a thread that isn't about what is better or worse — there's a strong implication that if most people want to play matched instead of other systems, that this would be “a bad thing”. Maybe not the intention, but I hope you can at least see why matched players would feel a little, well, attacked by that kind of wording.

[N_Watson]

29 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

I've run out of tortured analogies now, but it's been fun.

Let me just start with a thank you. They have been awful and I am glad you have ran out 

29 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Open is that backstreet club in Berlin.
You have to put your trust in people you may not know that well, and it'll probably feel weird to start with, but if you go in with an open mind you might surprise yourself at how much fun it is. Or, it might be terrible.
But at least you tried something different.

I doubt there are many people who play AOS that haven't played an open play game of AOS. How many times should one play something they don't enjoy before deciding that they don't enjoy it? You know, to not be deemed narrow minded and all...

 

29 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

It's also been said in this thread - and I'm only paraphrasing slightly here - that wanting to play open/narrative means you want to be able to cheat.

Checked full thread, and I have no idea what you are referencing with this. 

55 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

The alternative to Matched Play being the default is *not* narrative/open.
The option should be "whatever you want".

That's actually what this whole thread was about.

Is it though? I will put in the op for clarification. 

On 14/01/2017 at 6:56 PM, pez5767 said:

 

Hey All!

Now that the General's Handbook has been out for 6+ months, I'm curious if anyone is playing the Narrative Style, Paths to Glory, Open, or anything other than matched/points/tournament-prep play? 

I know when the book released a lot of people (myself included) were worried that once the GH dropped,  points-based match play would be the only style of play getting used.  Certainly, from scanning the forums here, it looks like those fears have come to fruition in terms of all AoS games being conceptually prep for tournaments. Lots of discussion of "optimal choices" or units being "too expensive" to use. Is anyone having a different experience in their local area?  

 

Well, yes. I am playing Narrative style games in my local area. I am having different experiences to what you are having. 

Narrative/open play/"however you want play" players seem to be less involved on these boards. It might be helpful to have a section on the forums dedicated to each of the 3 ways in the book, not to segregate, but to help grow their individual communities/events while also keeping the general forums free of this tired discussion. 

That way, narrative players aren't only seeing list building threads and can discuss their latest cinematic battle or plan their next.  

 

[DeadlySarcasm]

Well isn't this thread just delightful...

Play nicely please children, otherwise I'm going to take away your toys and lock this thread

[BaldoBeardo]

"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"

That's the spirit. "I need points to keep the other player honest".

[emoji441]It's a small world after all... [emoji441]

I do love how these threads always become so partisan though. No room for agnosticism.
Which is fine, I guess, if you need there to be a winner and a loser. Hey, wait a second... ?

When GHB2 comes along and dropkicks matched play into a back-of-the-book appendix, I promise I won't laugh. [emoji3]

(...playing without points requires social skills. [emoji476])

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Craptrain]

1 minute ago, BaldoBeardo said:

(...playing without points requires social skills. )

 

True, but that doesn't mean that playing with points doesn't.  My group plays a mixture of matched play and narrative games, but we generally use points for both as a means to help guide how we want the armies to shape up.  To say that my group lacks social skills because we use points as a helpful (and speedy) method of crafting lists is completely off the mark.  I just had a nice conversation with my opponent for tomorrow about our lists even though we're using points.

[BaldoBeardo]

True, but that doesn't mean that playing with points doesn't.  My group plays a mixture of matched play and narrative games, but we generally use points for both as a means to help guide how we want the armies to shape up.  To say that my group lacks social skills because we use points as a helpful (and speedy) method of crafting lists is completely off the mark.  I just had a nice conversation with my opponent for tomorrow about our lists even though we're using points.

Aw, come on... I didn't drop an unambiguous statement for someone to come back with a reasonable response!

You, Watson and others - you have a good bead on things. You play a mix. You use points as a guide, not always as an absolute. You obviously have a great group. You have fun. You *get* it.

I just got drawn in to the discussion by the pizza analogy and wanted in. You see, it's like when you see someone kissing your sister... [emoji15]

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[N_Watson]

@DeadlySarcasm Probably best you lock this thread now. Constructive discussion has dissolved and the topic exhausted. 

[DeadlySarcasm]

2 minutes ago, N_Watson said:

@DeadlySarcasm Probably best you lock this thread now. Constructive discussion has dissolved and the topic exhausted. 

Agreed

 

Please learn from this, it's very frustrating to have to lock threads because it devolves into 2 or 3 members just having a go at each other