I don't have any issue with the lack of points in Age of Sigmar. Others do.
Such people comment that this means the game lacks 'balance'. But do points systems necessarily mean balance? Is current 40k - most often the chosen comparator - balanced?
I read and enjoyed the following post, which, for BoLs of all places, gives quite a sensible view:
I like current 40k. I use the codex FOCs to structure my hobby and I enjoy working within the framing they provide. However, I'd never say the 40k points system, FOCs, armies, and formations are happily balanced - they clearly aren't. What these things do allow for is easy and thematic army building and collecting. And if you like you can just go Unbound, which is also points based...
My position is simple. Does it make for an enjoyable game?
Enjoyable: a fun way to spend hobby/leisure time with friends, family, or even by myself.
Game: a structured pastime with some kind of internal coherency, process and/or objective, where enjoyment (see above) is derived from a shared understanding of approach, on a spectrum that includes cooperative, ultra-competative, and downright silly.
In short, points systems are helpful for building certain kinds of gaming experiences. They cannot guarantee balance, as that is always going to be contextual, and to remove that kind of context would lead to rendering most tabletop wargames into something quite different; something that wouldn't be anything like the games they are. Age of Sigmar, 40k, and the like, are neither Chess nor historical re-enactments.
With the kind of cooperation and shared vision I'd expect from the people I game with, the simple Age of Sigmar rules have enough in them to encourage and support endless enjoyable games (no one I know or would care to play with would turn up with ten giants etc. etc., unless we were playing that kind of scenario).
And that, surely, is the only point worth talking about.
In short, points systems are helpful for building certain kinds of gaming experiences. They cannot guarantee balance, as that is always going to be contextual, and to remove that kind of context would lead to rendering most tabletop wargames into something quite different; something that wouldn't be anything like the games they are. Age of Sigmar, 40k, and the like, are neither Chess nor historical re-enactments.
With the kind of cooperation and shared vision I'd expect from the people I game with, the simple Age of Sigmar rules have enough in them to encourage and support endless enjoyable games (no one I know or would care to play with would turn up with ten giants etc. etc., unless we were playing that kind of scenario).
And that, surely, is the only point worth talking about.