AOS was better before they introduced poitns

Did anyone else like Age of Sigmar more before they added in the points?

I understand that t was not ideal for competitive play at all, but atleast it forced players to be honest with eachother and have generally more balanced and relaxed games


the main problem I find in games that use points like W40K is that people justify using insanely broken lists by saying "well i paid the points for it". on top of that I think the act of affixing a point value to a unit causes more butthurt to the player if it gets destroyed
Thoughts?

Points are an OPTION.

before points AoS sold nothing in my flgs and it was full of WFHB grognars like myself.
Then they made points and everybody bought models and play AoS.
the people that played withour point can STILL play without point.

AOS was better when it was WHFB.

Sucked then, sucks now.

If by "not ideal" you mean "completely impossible" for competitive play, then your right.
Frankly, no fucking to game out there uses no points for good reason. It's not coincidence that the game picked up when they grudgingly released points.
Now they just need to keep on top of keeping the game balanced, and they seem to be making steps in that direction.
If that means I shell out 20 bucks a year for a cool shake up of the meta, then I'm down. Christ in this hobby that's chump change anyway.

>open play battle
>"dude I brought like twenty warriors. Why do you have seven bloodthirsters?"
>"open play dude. You can forfeit if you want."

>Points are an OPTION.
This

You don't have to use them

We do weekly open free for all battles at my local store. You can bring anything you want but if you are too much of a WAACfag or That Guy then people will team up against you.

>"dude I brought like twenty warriors. Why do you have seven bloodthirsters?"
>seven bloodthirsters
>seven
>Khorne

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

If you don't like points, come up with a better way to balance a game. Any game. Points were introduced over 50 years back as a way to 'balance' games and get away from Me having to face your 500 Ultramarines with a half dozen Orks. Army lists are supposed to help, but GW raped that concept a quarter century back.

AoS (and 40k) is in dire need of better game rules that benefit from a half century of other miniature games efforts. What you fail to appreciate is the GW makes their $ by coming out with new, 'insanely broken' army lists that make other lists suk and eliminate commonly held troops.

That said, I have about a dozen greater demons in storage. Wanna play 12 on 12?

>new, 'insanely broken' army lists that make other lists suk and eliminate commonly held troops

Eh. This is overblown. GSC are really strong for example, but Deathwatch are pretty sucky. They do revise rules to churn things and get people to switch armies whether due to strength or novelty or whatever. But it's not as simple as newer = better.

Thanks for helping me win a bet, OP.

>it was full of WFHB grognars like myself.
>Then they made points and everybody bought models and play AoS.
Yeah sure m8
Also, OP is kind of right, before points AoS was full sandbox, with points it's became just poor designed abomination of 40k and warmachine with no reasons to play it.

>before points AoS was full sandbox
How did points take away your sandbox? More than half the GHB is about Open multiplayer games and Narrative scenarios.

>How did points take away your sandbox?
Pointw, more rules, it's limiting game and rules aren't good.

>LESS IS MORE

? this doesn't make any sense

points are an objective upgrade to a system where points don't exist

>people justify using insanely broken lists by saying "well i paid the points for it"
man the fuck up and don't play these people then. before they could justify it by "I can literally take whatever the fuck I want because there's no rules", did you still play them then?

>before they could justify it by "I can literally take whatever the fuck I want because there's no rules", did you still play them then?

In open play if someone did that we were able to forge the narrative to make it exciting - you have a powerful army but I get some bonus or objective.

As soon as you have points anything but symmetrical points value is "cheating"

OAS-cucks will defend this.

AoS, man, waddya want? Actual effort?

AOS was shit and it remains shit.

>Points were introduced over 50 years back as a way to 'balance' games and get away from Me having to face your 500 Ultramarines with a half dozen Orks.

Points were introduced by pansy-ass sissies who can't agree with their opponent on force composition because speaking is hard. Fantasy gaming was a mistake.

Second post best post.

Also AoS had awful rules on start.

>who can't agree with their opponent on force composition because speaking is hard.
Nah, spending few hours for play-tests before the game is hard

Spending a half an hour haggling before the game on what's fair or not, only for the players to most likely get it wrong and have an unfair shitfest anyway, isn't hard, but if you can't see why it's bad you might consider launching yourself into the sun.

Why would you spend few hours to playtest? It's something you can agree on in 20 minutes. The only people who would make it difficult are people who hold the laughtable notion that miniature games can be competitive.

only possible answer/10

Last good edition was 5th, anything after that was either a really shitty medieval combat knock-off or monsterfest.

>Why would you spend few hours to playtest?
Because I want to play a game, not interactive diorama with obvious winner

You must hate videogames.

>Did anyone else like Age of Sigmar
Silly user, nobody ever liked Age of Sigmar, some people are just still in denial.

>Did anyone else like Age of Sigmar more before they added in the points?
It's easier to not use them when they're there that use them when they're not there.

>I understand that t was not ideal for competitive play at all,
Understatement of the year. It made it impossible.

>but atleast it forced players to be honest with eachother and have generally more balanced and relaxed games
How?
H O W


>the main problem I find in games that use points like W40K is that people justify using insanely broken lists by saying "well i paid the points for it".
That's fixed by providing good rules and balanced factions* that don't allow insanely broken lists to exist, not by removing points. Without points (and without army structure, which is still lacking) it's just EASIER to make insanely broken lists. The only thing preventing that is common sense and fair play, which, guess what?, you can have with points and army structures as well.
*Neither Warhammer Fantasy nor Warhammer 40k ever delivered in terms of good rules or balanced lists, sadly.

>on top of that I think the act of affixing a point value to a unit causes more butthurt to the player if it gets destroyed
That's just stupid. Well, the entire post is just stupid.

In short: AOS sucked without points and still sucks, but a little less, with them.

How does a points system stop you from being able to play asymmetric scenarios?

In most of video games players starts ftom equal chances to win.

Very well, you and your opponent disagree whether something is fair or not. Now what?

/thread

>"is better ape shit or donkey shit"?

spbp

>the main problem I find in games that use points like W40K is that people justify using insanely broken lists by saying "well i paid the points for it".
This isn't a problem in decent games. Try playing ANYTHING NOT BY GW FUCK

It doesn't. He is just a retard.

>Babies buttblasted that their game didn't sell and was rennovated
>obvious bait thread
>sigtards taking bait from classical conditioning from buttblasted fantasy faggots

Q U A L I T Y