STOP Letting Points RUIN Your Wargaming Experience!

[@kevoreilly6557]

Don’t you remember the famous worlds from loenidas to Darius at Thermopylae? “You’ve got too many points!”

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

Love it.

[@WolfpackWargaming]

For me at least, i think competitive army building is whats ruining the hobby. I only enjoy narrative campaigns at this point because theres a meta for everything that can win

[@WolfpackWargaming]

For example everyone plays the same necron list or same SS list in bolt action currently because that's the meta

[@vincnetjones3037]

It's players gaming the systems that is really annoying.... Gurkha paratroopers with SAS in Armoured Jeeps supported by small 5 x man Commando squads with 2 x Vickers K machine guns along with a Tetrarch tank armed with a howitzer already dug into a ruined house. My opponent couldn't understand why my head dropped and I laughed at the same time. I just wanted a decent game that night.... Bizarrely the dice Gods really favoured me that night and I won. 🤣😂

[@WolfpackWargaming]

@vincnetjones3037 it should be a default rule against combining non allied nations to min max an army

[@kevinfright8195]

As an Historical Wargamer of over fifty years, l am totally against points. I love an unbalanced engagement on the field of battle. In many battles l have known the outcome before the first dice had been rolled . But it is the challenge that l love.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

Agreed.

[@johnscarr70]

Points can be helpful in scenario design. In this way, you can determine victory conditions, based on the imbalance. Sometimes getting thrashed can be very satisfying.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

That is a very interesting point you raise. I hadn't actually thought about that but makes a lot of sense. Thanks again.

[@johnscarr70]

@bigbattleslittleworlds you see refights of engagements like the Alamo and Isandlwana where the outcome is fairly certain. You are almost certain to be defeated by an enemy with a much greater points cost, but victory conditions may mean you lose the battle but win the game. I do very much agree though. Equal forces are rarely the way to go.

[@bringer-25]

Great video, I have to say narrative all the way. i understand that for competitions points make it fair but for casual cast them away.

[@lilaotearoa5399]

Even for casual play they have a use for trying to balance armies but sure you can relax it and say we want to play with roughly 2000 pt armies but it's fine if your list is slightly over at say 2065 etc.

[@vincnetjones3037]

@@lilaotearoa5399 And those great games where you are heavily outnumbered and eventually the enemy get to you, but it's enjoyable....😀

[@willcorlett7630]

Good video, with a lot of good points. I think it really comes down to what you want from your game. I was for a long time a competitive player and after many years realised I was not playing a game but all my strategising was to exploit every tiny nuance of the rules and spend endless time refining and refining my armies to get to the nirvana of the perfect build. Tabletop tactics be blowed , an effective army list would blow out an opponent by simply being plonked on the table. Narrative or scenario driven games - especially arising from a campaign are far more satisfying. While still only a game a well thought out scenario lets players play to their strengths (and weaknesses) but at the end even a defeat against larger odds can be very rewarding. Only my view but these games also encourage creativity, rather than the cut and dried , points based/tournament games. Lost faith in points and how they were balanced when GW 3rd edition came out. Somehow Space Marines costs were halved without any loss in their potency, could it just be a coincidence that SM were GW's best sellers and overwhelmingly the introductory army of choice? Likewise, might be me but Bolt Action is another that seems to lean into "pay to win" in its competative format Aside from this looking to get your rulesets but unsure of the format, I am assuming that these are in PDF?

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

I really like your balanced outlook. Despite being a narrative gamer, I agree that there is a place for both types of games. One of the things I think is sad about Game Workshop games is that there is such a cool narrative, but most games don't really play out like the narrative does due to the balancing of points. Regarding my rules, they are PDFs but if you prefer a different format I can try and do something else, let me know your thoughts. Thanks again.

[@willcorlett7630]

@@bigbattleslittleworlds Thanks for the quick reply, I picked up the rules for Follow the Flags, which at first glance look interesting but as it always seems to be with wargamers, I might not agree with some of your design choices - cavalry perhaps far too effective? - but proof is in the pudding, so I will get a few games in first.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

@@willcorlett7630 Thanks for grabbing a set, I would look forward to hearing your feedback and any modifications you would do as then in due course I can possibly do a version 2 . Thanks again and i hope you enjoy.

[@willcorlett7630]

@@bigbattleslittleworlds I have got a bit of time today and set up the first scenario to get a feel for the rules and how they play out and will provide some feed back after a couple of sessions. I was thinking about posting to your club facebbok page rather than here?

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

@@willcorlett7630 Sounds great

[@Thebluefox815]

This sword has two edges. I mean, competative playing is the most popular so most people favor this equal fight. This is also very exciting because it triggers the question who is the best player. I play both. I love 40k, Star Wars legion and mesbg in a competative setting. Then it is more like fotbal game etc. both players have the same chance of winning. But I also love historical battles with historical set-up and armies, but then one player will play with advanteges and most likely «win». You play for the historical perspective and it’s just for fun. Competative is about prizes and winning and losing. It is also how the game is design. 40k and SWL are designed for points and competative play. «Pickett’ charge» etc is more designed for historical recreation

[@timwade4397]

I started way back in the 70s and no points or army lists then. The members of my old club had a fight with what you have. Each player brought along whatever troops he had for the game. The side with the smaller numbers usually were in defence and could adjust the terrain somewhat to suit. I played in games where the larger force got over confident and lost. I must say points list have their uses. I play a lot of Fire and Fury original and regimental. I found on the net two sets of pre-made lists all made to the same points value but diverse make up. I made a set of cards which is used to blind draw each side, great for pick up games.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

i love the deck idea for random generation. My own rule sets have a random army generator at the start of the rules or just use what you have methodology. Thanks again.

[@CaptainNotFinity]

“CRAETIVITY and narrative”

[@DaveMcGuire-us8wx]

I think points are a good way to start learning a new system or play in a tournament. Once the system is known, then you can do other things to make more interesting games.

[@engineerpaul0073]

Thoughtful use of victory conditions can make for a more narrative friendly way to balance without use of points.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

Agreed. Thanks for watching and leaving a comment.

[@timbuktu8069]

Here is a fun thing to do. Build an army based on 150% of what you plan on playing. Now divide that army into 10 groups. Finally, randomly choose *SEVEN* of those groups. That is the army you get to play with. It won't be a balanced game. But at the same time it won't be totally unbalanced either.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

That is a really cool idea, I might have to give it a try.

[@timbuktu8069]

@@bigbattleslittleworlds I wish I could claim credit for it but I got it from an old Wargames magazine.

[@chestersleezer8821]

Name me one historical battle where the opposing armies were equal. You can't because there wasn't any. There are many actual battles where the smaller force carried the day just due to their will to win or just having a better commander. So I have gone away from points and just work to put together a decent scenario where the players can have fun.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

Exactly, well said. I love a good scenario game now.

[@Thebluefox815]

Battle of First Manassas There, I named you one as close as equal in number, training, officer experience/education and tactics 😅

[@chestersleezer8821]

@@Thebluefox815 Except the South did have the better Officers since most of the trained Officers were from the south and the men from the South were better fighters. Sure both sides had around 18,000 men that were engaged but the North were treating this as a picnic with many individuals from DC out there to see a fight. The results the North was not ready to fight and over 1,200 men from the North went missing. They were not missing they took off running right from the start since they were poorly trained and poorly led since the Generals & Colonels of the North were not out to fighting against their Southern counterparts.

[@Thebluefox815]

@@chestersleezer8821 Have you even read the history here? The battle was going the Union way for the most of the morning and mid-day, at one point the entire CSA army was in dissaray and retreating towards manassas junction. Irwin McDowells first plan was also a good solid one, if he just had gone through with it. The battle of the first manassas was minutes from being a complete union victory at Henry Hill. Mcdowell didn’t follow up his advantege and there is the case of the Stonewall brigade. As with many many battles through history the outcome of this battle was a fair share of luck, just pure luck. Being at the right place at the right time. And a note: it was civilans who tought this was a picnic, not the military commanders. Many had served in the mexican-american war and knew what a battle would look like.

[@rexhurley4380]

Well spoken. I have been around for many years, competing from the 80s until 2010 when I retired from competitive play now I pretty much do my own thing. Along the way I found points okay but if I take FOW for example the best and most fun games we ever had were when we broke away from xyz points on a standard format 6 x 4 and played more on 8 x 6 tables or when we transferred Spearhead Cross of iron and White Star Rising Scenarios to FOW. They were the most enjoyable games, Marder IIIS trying to stop advancing heavy armour and so on. Made for more enjoyable games because its use what you get not power up your army. Another example my friend played at an ADLG event on the weekend. Came dead last, why? He took Carthaginians using Cromarty Forge 3d prints I did for him, sexy as figures...came dead last behind the normal BIW and HI power armies specifically designed to win as per the rules. he was crushed but now acknowledges winning isn't everything but yeah points ruin gaming IMO however we are all different and at different stages of our gaming journey so I guess embrace the journey find likeminded friends and do whatever you so choose.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

Very well said, and I guess encourages everyone to be open to trying out different styles of play. I like your ideas of using the Spearhead Cross of iron and White Star Rising Scenarios to FOW sound like a lot of fun.

[@rexhurley4380]

@bigbattleslittleworlds if you do for allied and German forces one Spearhead battalion is a fow platoon for Soviets a company. Other options to I forgot to mention is I play DBA but use a To the Strongest 15 x 10 square grid 1 pip of movement equals one square however instead of using standard boring 12 elements armies I use the armies as shown from the scenario books from Command and Colours Ancients, a lot more enjoyable and makes you think. Equally useful for you rules of choice even napoleon is.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

@@rexhurley4380 That sounds awesome. Thanks for the ideas, I will look in to that. Thanks again.

[@Driftless-Ramblings]

A balanced points game is not my thing. Very few historical battles were nicely balanced and fair. As an infantryman, I was always told that we wanted to mass enough force on an objective to have 3:1 odds in an attack. What is impressive, is when the outnumbered force using terrain and tactics pulls off a victory. This is why I really prefer campaign games.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

Very well put. Agreed.

[@MichaelBailey-y1d]

Excellent video, thought provoking. I am of opinion games should be narrative led, with points left to competitions. But must ask about painting at 14.44. Any clues as to artist or origin? Very grateful for any answers on this.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

Thanks for watching. Unfortunately, I am not sure who or where it comes from I found it on google images. I suspect it is ai generated but cant be sure. I do like it though.

[@acmaurer50]

If you find yourself in an even fight, there's something wrong with your planning.

[@cfox7811]

I see the points as useful to determine the value of each side but to have them balanced with the opposition is flat out boring and completely ahistorical.

[@JMACCSArmiesOfMiddleEarth]

This push for competative play in wargaming is runining the hobby in my opinion. What happened to lets just put two themed armies down and see what happens. I really wish there were more themed events as I love the social side and playing games but 99percent are all about the tournaments and winning.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

Agreed, it really is a shame, it would be good at least if the tournaments would have 2 parts to their events. 1 for competitive points gamers, but a second where medals/rewards are given out for best-themed armies and the battles are for those armies. That way you would have 2 winners for each show.

[@grahamphilpot7281]

Do people still use points based army lists? I’ve had to use them occasionally but always to the detriment of both the game and anything like historical accuracy. For the most part, I use rules that are designed for and only really functional for scenario based games. When you play scenario games it is immediately apparent how useless points values really are.

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

Agreed.

[@lexi_9995]

Real battles were not based on points so why should wargames (pull pin throw granade dodge behind rock).

[@bigbattleslittleworlds]

Exactly.