AoS News Coming Tomorrow (April 25)

[Auticus]

Yeah - I don't think points are bad. I spent the last nine months working heavily on a point comp that just happened to not work out very well because I didn't have a GT behind it.

However I do think tournament culture will begin seeping back into AOS which kills everything not associated with tournament culture. Want to run those scenarios that are unbalanced? Good luck! Twenty years of tournament culture has taught me that, at least in North America, getting to do narrative scenarios is a massive challenge when everyone around you wants to do tournament pitched battle because otherwise "its not fair".

Erik is spot on though - if thats what the people want then thats what the people want. Trying to change that is pointless, and this is where I get off the GW bus and find something else to do with my time.

[Erik Setzer]

Personally, I'm more interested in the two new systems of play, Matched and Narrative. Narrative might not use points, but it sounds like it could make for some interesting matches. Open Play, from what I've seen (and this is just local community, so not at large, but since I play locally it affects my decision), tends to be "place your wallet on the table and see who has more disposable income."

YMMV, of course.

[Auticus]

I have to think that narrative play is simply using the scenarios in the campaign books as they exist today, which where I am is not popular. (People here want pitched battle with points)

[Erik Setzer]

It suggested some type of campaign system, so that might be good.

I think the biggest problem with the scenarios in the books is that you have to buy the books to have access to them, and some of the books are kind of cost-prohibitive.

It'd also be good to have more generic "scenarios." Kind of like 40K's missions, but roll back to the 3rd edition rulebook's style of missions, where there were different objectives to achieve. That'd be pretty fun. Or even the secret objectives of 40K2 (which they did a variant of for 40K3 or 4). Then it's not as "restrictive," and usually easier to talk people into trying new versions of playing.

[Haighus]

Sort of like asymmetric missions that are easier to fit to a narrative tune?

[Auticus]

You can buy the scenarios from the app separate.

The reasons given for not playing the scenarios where I am (so this only applies to my community)

* don't want to spend *any* money at all, even $5 for a scenario is too much
* don't want to have to build an army and then have a scenario invalidate it. want to stick with scenarios my army is built for
* want a standard scenario for pick up games, don't want to have to learn rules for other scenarios

[Erik Setzer]

Well, when part of the selling point for the game is "the rules are free," I can kind of understand feeling misled if they have to pay for scenarios.

I think generic scenario-style missions would be a good option. You can wrap a narrative around them, maybe even string them together. I.e. a mission like Relic where you have to capture an item, followed by something like the old Ambush mission where the guys who grabbed the item are now trying to escape with it (or escape after failing to secure it). You could do those with Open Play or Matched Play, but they'd still be "Narrative Play."

[silashand]

Erik is spot on though - if thats what the people want then thats what the people want. Trying to change that is pointless, and this is where I get off the GW bus and find something else to do with my time.

This has been true for as long as I have been playing games. The mistake with AoS was to try and force people to play the way they (GW) wanted them to rather than ask most players what they actually wanted from the system. I agree finding players to engage in asymmetric gaming is difficult sometimes and that competitive play styles tend to dominate. However, I have actually found that players will do the former on occasion, it just takes a lot of work on the part of the organizer to engage and get people interested. It does work, though usually only for one-off games. Most people play games because they want a competitive element, even if that element may be somewhat limited. "Games" without that capability are rarely popular in my experience. JMO though...

Really, I think I'm just finding a long way to say that if you find that so many people want to use points that you can't get a game without them, then clearly no-points wasn't "the good life" and people really do prefer some balance in their games. It's rather off-putting to see an elitist attitude toward the use of points, and the attitude that if people choose to go that route, even your own gaming mates, they're making the "wrong" choice.

How is the "pro-AoS" crowd the ones to jump on this and make it out to be something potentially negative? What happened to "Wait and see, you might like it!" or "Give it a try!" or any of the other things we've heard the last few months? The game gives options - OPTIONS! - to be more inclusive and people act like it's suddenly the end of the game.

This is the attitude the fluff players have had for as far back as I can remember. In 30 years of gaming by far the only people I ever heard tell me if I didn't like the way the rules were then I should just leave and go play something else were fluff players. If people didn't play their way they were wrong. I almost never heard the so-called tourney crown say that. Their attitude was do whatever you want as long as it's in the rules. AoS forced people to play in such a non-competitive style because there was no other alternative. Now that some form of balance may be coming back it is somehow the end of the world because the competitive players they hated so much might come back to play again and end up dominating the player base like they do in every other game system. IMO AoS gave the fluff crowd exactly what they wanted so they were more than willing to say "just give it a try!" Unfortunately, the one thing they never wanted to admit was that they might possibly be in the minority when it came to what the game should be about so when most players dumped it instead they were left with only those who thought and played the way they did. Honestly, for the fluff players AoS probably is a "Golden Age" of sorts. Unfortunately, from a gaming standpoint they were the ones proven wrong because no one else wanted to play it and thus from a business standpoint it is unsupportable. After having to listen to the shills for so long I have almost no sympathy left for them. Because after finally convincing GW they were what the hobby was all about it resulted in GW killing one game system and replacing it with something far worse overall. They got what they wanted and it essentially killed the GW fantasy gaming community because of it.

[Mr Mystery]

Got to say, I'm baffled at those objecting to any points based system.

Whilst I personally am happy as is, it's similar to me demanding my 40k opponents only ever play FoC or Unbound etc.

Seriously, what's the big deal? Narrative stuff is my prime enjoyment, but points don't prevent that, if it's a 'balanced' scenario (others can be well skewed in army sizes, because they can similarly skew the victory conditions).

Just like the plethora of ways to play 40k, straight points are likely to become the default way to play for pick up games - and there's nothing wrong with that. So use it as a conduit to a new gaming circle. Once you've played a few game with peeps 'strictly by the book', you'll not have a random gaming partner, but a friend - if they're fun to play against.

If they're no fun to play against in strict points, count yourself lucky that you dodged a bullet, as I can pretty much guarantee you they'd be even less fun in scenario or open play.

So chill. Relax. Open up to various new ways of playing. See what they're actually like before deciding it's not for you (for those familiar with my forum droolings, this is the same tack I took about AoS when it first came out).

As for Auticus....you and those others who took task in hand and had a crack at giving a points option, I salute you and your efforts. Even though I never used them, you're exactly the kind of person this hobby is all about. You put in more than you get out, and never quibbled about it.

Now for those crowing and tossing off, the sort who might bill this as 'an embarrassing about face LOLOLOLOL GW LRN2BSNS'....*

You *****ed, pissed and moaned when it came out. In fact, many of you *****ed, pissed and moaned before you knew anything factual about the game. Some even outright lied about having insider information.

But guess what? If we assume this is an about face, and wasn't originally planned (possible, but little solid evidence either way) then GW are now listening. So why the crowing? If you don't enjoy the game, then leave it be. If the forthcoming points system (apparently SCGT) is what you wanted? Then ace cakes.

But for those who will now simply shift their goalposts.....do you seriously have nothing better to do with your life?

*not the same as those welcoming the change, feeling it what the game needed.

[Mr Mystery]

Short update with actual informations.

This has been posted by a couple of sources on the FB AoS group, but sadly I can't yet vouch for accuracy.

Following a Manager's Meeting at Lenton (this much is correct in terms of timing) these new ways to play will be a book called The General's Handbook.

Full points system in it.

Also, seems Heelenhammer will be doing (or have done) a podcast all about it, and their involvement. Feedback from those guys is very positive (though seeing they got to work on it, perhaps not surprising!)