Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I have no clue how the gaming culture at stores is because I never play at stores - always been a bit awkward for me even to be inside one.
From anecdotal stories on the internet though, it sounds like AoS is not pleasing the store-goer crowd. It does have more people running tournaments than you'd expect if you go solely on forums. Some of the big Warhammer podcasters are pushing it, such as Dan Heelan.
It rejuvenated my interest in miniatures and brought me back to the hobby. It also interested my friends who had fallen out along with me as we grew up. However, even if they like it they can't justify paying GW prices.
I think AoS does a lot of things right, such as the freeform army building, scenarios, general balance between units. It does need refinement, as I find when a lot of combats start going it slows down quite a bit, and tracking all the different buffs from war scrolls is a chore.
At this point, I don't think it has the "it" factor that would get most Warhammer miniatures fans to jump on board. Whether that's a proper comp system or what, I'm not sure. But I think the miniatures are so good, the history is there, some of the fundamentals are great steps forward, that there is potential in this game surviving and thriving.
However, if GW are going to sit on their hands and sink or swim with their first edition of this ruleset, I would be disappointed.
If 2016 saw a push with some mainstays like elves, dwarfs, orcs and then an attempt at refinement in the rules or alternate mode of play, I think that could bring a lot of disillusioned fans back.
Kilkrazy wrote: I remember that too, and of course it is simple to update a PDF. GW did update the rules to correct the bonus victory conditions very quickly. (The victory conditions for outnumbered armies.)
But really, there isn't very much that needs to be clarified or corrected in the rules. (Short of a massive re-write, at any rate.)
To expand upon my original point, there was supposed to be a 'basic' rule set, and later on, the game was supposed to be a bit more 'complex' with expansions and individual units adding more layers...or something like that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I was under the impression that the AOS rules were supposed to be a 'living' ruleset with constant updates and feedback from players, which could have been a bold move.
Is that still the case, or is it been turned into a steaming pile of gak?
This is what I remember from the early rumors as well. At this point I think it would be pretty easy to fix a few niggling rules issues like clarifying certain sections, natural 1s always fail, and a couple of others.
My response to Kilkrazy was directed at you, as well. Still can't get the hang of multi-quote
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/23 15:07:53
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I don't remember anything about expansions to the rules, though there was lots of speculation that GW would release a point system and a tournament pack. The schools' league pack is the closest they have come to doing that so far.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't remember anything about expansions to the rules, though there was lots of speculation that GW would release a point system and a tournament pack. The schools' league pack is the closest they have come to doing that so far.
I don't recall that as ever being a rumour, I was under the impression that was people expecting more to the game or wishlisting while the school league pack was just that, something the lower end employees put together for an event in some stores, not something that the game studio put together for wider use.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
Kilkrazy wrote: I remember that too, and of course it is simple to update a PDF. GW did update the rules to correct the bonus victory conditions very quickly. (The victory conditions for outnumbered armies.)
But really, there isn't very much that needs to be clarified or corrected in the rules. (Short of a massive re-write, at any rate.)
To expand upon my original point, there was supposed to be a 'basic' rule set, and later on, the game was supposed to be a bit more 'complex' with expansions and individual units adding more layers...or something like that.
That was just pure speculation on the part of people defending AoS during the initial release of the rules. It was a lot of "Well, this can't be it, we'll just have to wait and see, your opinions on the quality of the ruleset are invalid."
Talys wrote: I think you misunderstood what I was saying, my friend.
In Fantasy, you'll have people who buy a Nagash or a Treeman or a Malekith. A LoTR fan might buy a Smaug, sure.
But in 40k, you'll have someone buy 3+ Knight Castigators at $350 each, a half dozen Wraithknights, 5 Imperial Knights, 5+ Hive Tyrants, et cetera... as a part of "standard" army. I mean, nobody would ever buy 3 Smaugs, but the book has *rules* squads of Stormsurges, wraithknights, and "households" of Imperial Knights. It's really gotten to the point where a lot of us are looking at tables larger than 6x4 (8x8, and even the granddaddy of gaming tables, 8x12) just to fit all our awesome stuff.
I think in the world of Fantasy, if there were an appetite to fill the table with ten $200 dragons to each side, GW would be there like a dirty shirt.
Did you miss my earlier post?
The reason it's not done in Fantasy is because it can't be done in Fantasy. There was no point buying 5 Treemen because you couldn't use them. There's no point buying 2 Dragons because they were the mount for a Lord and unless it was a huge game you could only take 1 of them.
WHFB has always had percentage limits, if your big things are Rare choices they can't be more than 25% of your points and you must have at least 25% troops. Even before 7th ed 40k with its Unbound madness, 40k got rid of the % system back in 3rd edition so as long as a unit wasn't limited as 0-1, you could usually take 3 of them at any points level.
But either way I'm not entirely sure why we've gone off on this tangent? Does it matter if people purchase big monsters or not? Often the infantry regiments are even more expensive money wise than the monsters anyway.
This, really. Smaug is used merely to highlight the point that is really just a Gigantic and horribly expensive Dragon that was sold out the moment he popped up. It means Fantasy miniatures (In the broad sense, i don't mean FB miniatures) can sell quite well at that scale.
As I said in the previous post, I am damned sure a lot of Lizardmen players would love to field a dino-only army. Or HE players to field an old Caledor army (Dragon rider galore). Or an Empire Nuln Army featuring only Steam Tanks and the new "Steam Goliath" (My imagination is lacking atm int he name dept, sorry :p) or a DE Karond Kar army with Hydras and Manticores and enslaved Dragons... etc etc etc.
To be fair, there's a reason this wasn't allowed. It makes any semblance of balance very difficult, typically drastically ramps up the scale of the game, and often in general is simply contrary to the background (e.g. there were a fixed, finite, small, and definite number of Steam Tanks within the Empire, and IIRC never used as a massed formation).
40k is having gigantic problems with exactly this. When you can have things like entire armies of Knights, it makes basic infantry rather pointless, and, even more critically, makes the granularity of the rules extremely onerous (e.g. wound allocation and power weapon blade type become somewhat absurd with regards to basic infantry squads in such contexts)
The point remains, however - I am pretty sure WHFB players would buy them.
GW could've made Gigantic models for Fantasy as well. They simply chose not to, for whatever the reason.
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, there's a reason this wasn't allowed. It makes any semblance of balance very difficult, typically drastically ramps up the scale of the game, and often in general is simply contrary to the background (e.g. there were a fixed, finite, small, and definite number of Steam Tanks within the Empire, and IIRC never used as a massed formation).
40k is having gigantic problems with exactly this. When you can have things like entire armies of Knights, it makes basic infantry rather pointless, and, even more critically, makes the granularity of the rules extremely onerous (e.g. wound allocation and power weapon blade type become somewhat absurd with regards to basic infantry squads in such contexts)
+1.
I ended up selling off my biggest of superheavies because the escalation problem was just too much. My (small) meta's playing with max 1 light superheavy. Oversized centerpiece if you want it, not hoard of mecha or w/e.
While I've gotten used to it, I still feel like the last couple editions' shift to free-for-all list design really has been poor for compositions, and the old force org/WHFB's percentage caps were better.
I think it's a pretty transparent way to push more toys: the old niche 40k lists were largely "restrict yourself for a bonus" (i.e. sell specific toys) vs. the current "take combos to get free stuff" (no limitation, and sell more since they cost fewer game points).
Is 40% off better than the Amazon price mentioned earlier?
I have to admit, I was very excited about AoS when it came out. I still like the idea of it. The miniatures look amazing, too. However, after I bought the starter I went to buy the novel...that turned out to be a novella selling for a price I would balk at for a BL omnibus. Then the Sigmarines, the minis I was most interested in, came out and their prices were just too high. I put off buying them and eventually got used to the idea of not buying them. So, with no new fluff and no new minis, my excitement for AoS has pretty much disappeared. It might still give me a great excuse to roll dice someday, but I've lost that spending feeling, and it's gone, gone, gone. Wooaah-ohhh-ohh.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/23 18:29:33
puree wrote:Heard good things about Blucher and am definitely looking forward to Aurelian (i.e over the last year or so Sam Mustafa stuff has interested me a lot).
The above is a clue as to why I'm pretty neutral on the whole points thing in AoS. For tactical type games I like to play within some sort of campaign framework. Something that gives each engagement some meaning, or allows some sort of feedback into future games. I generally dislike just playing the same one off equal points generic scenario over and over. Sam Mustafas games (or at least the ones that have interested me) all have a campaign/strategic element to them. You don't put down equal point forces and play a one off table top battle (you can if you want of course) . In Maurice you may start off with equal points, but as the campaign goes on, and especially within a campaigning season, each army can fall or increase in 'value' by a lot leaving you fighting quite unequal battles later on. Blucher is different, but there is an operational side to it that determines the tabletop battles, who is present and even where you start on the table etc. There are reasons to split up forces and scout etc. I was working on adapting these systems for KOW earlier in the year before AoS dropped. If it wasn't for some real life issues we'd probably be playing a lot of KOW or AoS campaign stuff by now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/23 18:37:44
I was looking into buying the starter set just based on the number and quality of the minis you get for the low price it's going for. But I got an incredibly cold reception from my friends when I mentioned it. Zero interest in playing. I think this is more to do with the Fantasy IP than the change from WHFB to AoS. Friends would just prefer to play LoTR or D&D for fantasy-type TT gaming.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/23 19:22:12
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't remember anything about expansions to the rules, though there was lots of speculation that GW would release a point system and a tournament pack. The schools' league pack is the closest they have come to doing that so far.
I don't recall that as ever being a rumour, I was under the impression that was people expecting more to the game or wishlisting while the school league pack was just that, something the lower end employees put together for an event in some stores, not something that the game studio put together for wider use.
The school league battleplan was put together by GWHQ. It has the same professional style and source images. But yes, it was not intended for public release, however it was circulated on GW's intranet by HQ.
@Kilkrazy, what amendments were made to the victory conditions?
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
One of the bonus conditions for weak armies said you could win by beating the army by the end of turn 4. That was obviously pointless, because you would have been able to beat them by turn six anyway. It got changed to something more sensible.
Kilkrazy wrote: One of the bonus conditions for weak armies said you could win by beating the army by the end of turn 4. That was obviously pointless, because you would have been able to beat them by turn six anyway. It got changed to something more sensible.
Are you sure? This is the first I've heard of this. My rules from White Dwarf are the same as the ones you download now, I'm pretty sure.
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
puree wrote:Heard good things about Blucher and am definitely looking forward to Aurelian (i.e over the last year or so Sam Mustafa stuff has interested me a lot).
The above is a clue as to why I'm pretty neutral on the whole points thing in AoS. For tactical type games I like to play within some sort of campaign framework. Something that gives each engagement some meaning, or allows some sort of feedback into future games. I generally dislike just playing the same one off equal points generic scenario over and over. Sam Mustafas games (or at least the ones that have interested me) all have a campaign/strategic element to them...
I was working on adapting these systems for KOW earlier in the year before AoS dropped. If it wasn't for some real life issues we'd probably be playing a lot of KOW or AoS campaign stuff by now.
Thanks again, Puree. I'm trying to get a handle on how people view the pros and cons of AoS. (What they think the pros and cons are) Might be a bit beyond my capacity, but we'll see.
I've been enjoying Sam Mustafa's columns in W:SS. Missing them for the last couple of issues, actually. (Rick Priestly's bit has been discussing the issue of points in games too, but slides into grumpy-old-man mode too easily) I might have to check out his games too.
But overall, I agree that there could be more balance between points-based games and narrative/scenario games. Like I said in the 'GW saving itself' topic, I think GW has been sending out mixed messages about it's two main games - both points-based and apparently scenario-driven, but without making that plain, and so unbalanced - which results in this confused, 'betrayal' situation we have now.
The upshot is that most gamers seem to want points-based lists. But for your preferences, how does AoS fit for scenario/campaign gaming? Are you using the battletomes for that? If so, how many of them do you have? Do they provide enough variety?
Going back to something in an earlier post: after reading about your experience with, and preference for strategic and tactical games, I'm a little surprised that lizardmen armies are 'boring'. I guess I can see the point when you compare it to a potential, purely bigger-model 'dinosaur' army, but... for the pre-AoS lizardmen armies: do you mean they were boring to play with, or just to collect? For the AoS dinosaur armies: do they provide that strategic/tactical buzz?
As someone who's also interested in Blucher, and really needs to pick up the War to the Death card set, it's probably worth noting that Blucher has army lists and points values (200 for small games and 300 for standard games) alongside a campaign system.
And it looks like Aurelion is going along the same route.
Not sure I said lizard men were boring, which comment you are referring to there? They are actually one of my favorite Warhammer armies.
I find any rank and file models tedious and as boring as hell to do from a modelling perspective, and as I wouldn't field unpainted ones I tend to find putting together mass blocks of such stuff a big hurdle (mental and time wise). I think that may be the vibe you have picked upon? That tends to push me towards the small model count army. However, as much as I dislike putting together and painting mass of rank and file I do like many GW models - the bigger ones usually, what many would call 'center piece' models, although other stuff as well (monstrous cav etc). I can happily spend time making those and painting them, a few of those do not feel like a chore. Large models tend towards the small armies as well, useful coincidence. Part of that preference for larger models may be that I just like the larger models for the painting all those little details on them etc, but I think it also correlates with larger models tend to be the more fantastical ones, and I don't do fantasy for human looking elves and humans and dwarves etc. I like my fantasy models to be very clearly fantasy/mythical etc.
Because formal army lists usually mean a large part of your army is mass rank and file I dislike them for the above reason, but also just the fact that fantasy to me is the ultimate in imagi-nation armies, I want to do whatever I think will be cool, especially when it involves so much of my money and time getting the armies done. Hence such army list rules to me are boring, which may be the other comment you were picking up on. Points I'm neutral on. I have no great issue having them or not, and would probably use them for some things if they were there.
Nowadays my preference is to a find a nice tactical game with a campaign element to it (historical, sci-fi or fantasy, mini or board game). I'm happy to cobble my own campaign element to a tactical game, but bonus if it comes with one. The tactical game should be fast playing and reasonably able to handle both small and larger games (so a campaign can do engagements of any size). Small and large being vague and context specific. Better still if it can handle 3 or more players at once. The campaign can be very abstract, but have some way of allowing armies to slowly change over time and provide some meaning to the tactical games, and have the results of the games feed back in to the campaign. The meaningless one off point based games give a way of getting an idea of what a game is like and whether you want to play more of it, but beyond that I dislike those one off games nowadays.
I've only got the lizard man book for AoS, and whilst the scenarios in that make nice reading they are not what I'd play as a campaign. They are more one off scenarios with a back story that I'd play for one off games, although I quite like just writing my own based on what armies I know we will play with. I haven't seen the other scenarios/campaigns in other books.
As I was saying earlier, I had been working on converting the Maurice or Blucher campaign systems (or a likely combo of both) for use with KOW (hopefully my feelings of it being a bit bland would be much suppressed in a decent campaign). Then real life hit and I haven't been able to get many games in this year at all with my usual group. AoS also hit, and offered the advantage of having all our GW stuff covered (which KOW didn't) with the free pdfs. I also think the army pdfs do a very good job (on reading at least) of the armies that would likely be seen in any campaign we did. Hopefully next year we will get going properly on a campaign. So far I've not had enough games of AoS to say it is awesome and will fit etc, but it has been enjoyed thus far. It is great for the smaller warband style stuff, or starting small type campaign, we will have to see how far it can scale upwards without bogging down.
About Dino army specifically. As a very young kid some of my earliest reading was about dinosaurs, many years before Jurassic park. My parents used to joke that I could say words no one else could pronounce before I could say simple common stuff. Somewhere in the recesses of my mind is a love of dinosaurs. When 1ed D&D battlesystem hit there was a box cover of barbarians on dinosaurs that I loved. That is the army I wanted. Now I almost have my dinosaur army. I have no idea how they will play. I don't care how they will play. I get to line up my stegadons and other stuff with howdahs, pteradons over head and go "yeah!" its taken 40 years but better late than never.
If it overpowers other armies then I'll drop stuff to get the interesting games, that bit is a suck it and see. I don't think points helps there, points tend to break down as you move away from the 'normal' type of army. Plus in a campaign the larger system can balance what the tactical game might not. So for some possible rules I'm thinking about the dinosaurs would be harder to replace compared to rank and file. That sort of thing can make for an interesting dynamic where one army starts off more powerful, and the others seek to wear it down across multiple battles before the campaign objective is achieved.
puree wrote: The meaningless one off point based games give a way of getting an idea of what a game is like and whether you want to play more of it, but beyond that I dislike those one off games nowadays.
I know it's a tad unfair to pick out a single sentence from that big post in isolation, but AoS makes me uncharitable: I see this point of view regarding AoS a lot(well, "a lot" meaning "from a high percentage of the few people willing to defend AoS publicly", not in absolute terms), and it confuses me, because you were always free to ignore points.
You can't play involved campaigns with hacked-together add-on houserules adapted from other games with random people, they require a regular group I know from experience, which means if you wanted to build a Lizardmen dino-army before you could easily do it by simply disregarding the points values and army selection rules. AoS has not enabled you to do anything new, it's merely taken away the ability of players who don't share your distaste for one-off battles using rules-based army selection to enjoy Warhammer Fantasy(not that there's much left of that to enjoy given AoS' atrocious milquetoast pseudomyth background material).
In fact, the crowning irony is that literally the only reason you would need the core game rules to be designed around your personal style of play.....would be if you wanted to play one-off pickup games without a regular group.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Has anyone else noticed that the people praising AoS seem to be doing so with a lot of assumptions about how GW will flesh out the fluff for the new Empire and will have a great story planned about what happened to the Elves and Slaanesh, or because the empty setting allows them to build their own fluff, but don't praise the actual content GW have released as much?
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
From a game design perspective the more tight you design the game the better for those that want to build and expand upon, because building on solid foundations is better than building on sand.
That aside, the reality of our era is that one-off pick up games is the normal and involved campaigns were everybody is always attending is the statistical anomaly and game systems will be judged on the norm not the anomaly.
That aside, the reality of our era is that one-off pick up games is the normal
I would be interested in why you think that? I'd say it is not even remotely close to normal. At least in the UK the only pick up games that I ever see happens in GW stores, and a portion of that is between kids who don't have valid armies anyway and are not playing by any 'pickup friendly rules' beyond just using what they have (AoS style in fact). For any store with a couple of tables being played on there will be dozens of games going on in clubs or houses between people who know each other and have arranged a game and agree what they will bring etc. Those settings and players are also more than capable of coming up with their own army list rules that suits their preferences or campaigns if they want that sort of restriction etc. I'm sure the smallish group of people I play with does more gaming than the nearest GW store does, and they are pretty much all pre-arranged.
Is it different outside the UK, maybe I don't know. Do Americans only get to play with someone where they haven't discussed it or had a chance to discuss? Do they not play round at their mates or in clubs? I've certainly got the impression wrongly or rightly that Americans are more likely to be 'competitive' (be it warhammer or other games), but less sure about how they go about finding games outside tourneys.
Am I against supporting pick up play? No, not at all. Would I be bothered by points? not particularly, as I've said I'm neutral. I'm rather less neutral on official army lists. Do I think it is worth the hassle of all the work and effort to produce and maintain something that those who want it will still complain about it as they have for the last 30 years? No, at least in the UK it just isn't common enough to warrant that. Despite what people say points for games like AoS are not easy to do. One only has to look at the user attempts going on at the moment to see different views on how it should be done and arguments about whether it works or not. KOW is piss easy next to AoS, but I suspect there is still some fair effort that has gone into pointing stuff.
In fact, the crowning irony is that literally the only reason you would need the core game rules to be designed around your personal style of play.....would be if you wanted to play one-off pickup games without a regular group.
I don't need the core game rules to be designed around my personal style of play. If I don't like the core rules I just skip the game, no bother or stress as there are plenty more out there. Points and Army lists etc are not core game rules. They never have been and never will be. Core rules are the ones that tell you how to move, fight, take morale tests etc. Army lists etc are simply an option (as you just basically pointed out) that you may agree or not agree to use before playing the game. There are no rules on how you must choose what to bring other than those you agree to.
I've never disputed that these things facilitate pick up play. Its blatantly false to say they are needed of course, I've often seen pick up games in GW stores between kids with no 'valid' armies. If kids can do it then so can adults. If adults can't then IMO they have some bigger issues. It's been donkeys years since I actually played a pick up game in a GW store, but if I did now I wouldn't be bothered if someone whipped out an awesomely painted themed army that wasn't 'legal'. The sort of person who does that probably is also capable of coming to a quick agreement as to what looks about right for a good game. If it was a kid who wanted a game, which would be very possible in a GW store, then I'd be even less worried about legalities, get a quick idea of what sort of game he's after and just play him. If it takes more than a 5 minutes to quickly talk about what looks right then one of you probably has an issue no matter what army is involved.
However, Official army lists almost invariably push the game into that being the default way of playing. Events and tourneys in particular have a very strong tendency to use official lists at least. If I am going to plonk £500-1000 and months of effort into something that is only a secondary thing for me (games being the main part for me, not miniatures) then I want a game that by default encourages the idea that you play with the models you wanted to invest money and effort in. I am not into tourneys (though I wouldn't rule them out) but I have enjoyed the other events that GW have run in the past and they again almost invariably used official lists. I am considering going to an AoS event early next year though other factors may prevent that. They will have other restrictions, but so far they just say 'max number of models and talk with the other guy about what looks reasonable' to keep the games to a modest size and playable in a couple of hours. Then of course there are such factors as moving, joining new clubs etc. Again the default casual style of play for games gives some sort of assurance that I will probably find others who are going to be happy with the more free form army and that we can go from there, or my army will be a bit more likely to fit with any house rules. WFB would, with its default that most seem to have gone for, not give me any feeling that my army and all the money and time would be playable elsewhere.
If this was a board game it wouldn't bother me. You pay your £50 quid for a board game and get everything you need. The army lists in themselves do not make the game play itself good or bad. With command and colors for example all the pieces are there for the armies being dealt with. As I think I said elsewhere that is a big reason why I moved away from minis and increasingly towards board games in my later teens, you buy the game and just get playing. I'm the same with mini games that other want to play that I don't have stuff for, if they can provide the figures then I don't care about the lists. Give me the figures and lets play.
The difference with a mini game you want your own figures for is that you are investing serious money and effort into the miniatures. If games are your main thing and the minis are not then it can very much be an issue. If miniatures are your thing anyway (game or not) then that is not probably an issue and maybe that is why a lot of posters here don't seem to quite get that point of view. I expect there are more like me, and indeed I think that was being said earlier that started this, that some will only invest in the minis if they think the game is leaning by default towards that style of play. That 'vibe' (formal lists and army building) and perception of the sort of people who might play it may well have an effect on who either picks it up or keeps with it. Whether there are enough of those people to make up for those who want lists, points and a more competitive feel is another matter, and I do wonder that myself. However, if AoS does succeed in anything like its current form then the default pickup game will probably not be an army list game where you have to field minis you don't want to spend money and time on, and those who want pick up games will probably be of the same mind on that.
That raises the question what are you measuring success on? As I was more or less saying earlier I wouldn't have bought the miniatures if they had army lists that looked like being the default way of playing. Even if I played AoS with my old miniatures would that really be classing as success and doing my bit to preventing AoS failing? Did they not want to increase sales of something? I said earlier that I was looking at playing KOW, that would have been with my old minis as well plus maybe a few more GW ones, or possibly with home made bases Blucher style. Would that have classed as helping KOW succeed? Mantic are not going to sell me minis in the immediate future as I don't like them much. Their rules are also free like AoS. To put it another way, if AoS had army lists and points would you have gone out and bought more stuff, either now or later? A lot of people who are up in arms are long term players of WFB with existing armies. How often did you buy WFB figures and would army lists/points been the thing that kept you in AoS and buying figures?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/25 13:52:56
I can tell you I have been playing Warhammer FB/40k since mid 2003 and before AoS I had NEVER seen any game that didn't abide to the typical pick up rules. Heck even the AoS games that I have knowledge of here are played following homebrewed rules to MAKE them closer to what was universally liked before.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/25 14:10:56
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
puree wrote: I would be interested in why you think that? I'd say it is not even remotely close to normal. At least in the UK the only pick up games that I ever see happens in GW stores, and a portion of that is between kids who don't have valid armies anyway and are not playing by any 'pickup friendly rules' beyond just using what they have (AoS style in fact). For any store with a couple of tables being played on there will be dozens of games going on in clubs or houses between people who know each other and have arranged a game and agree what they will bring etc. Those settings and players are also more than capable of coming up with their own army list rules that suits their preferences or campaigns if they want that sort of restriction etc. I'm sure the smallish group of people I play with does more gaming than the nearest GW store does, and they are pretty much all pre-arranged.
Is it different outside the UK, maybe I don't know. Do Americans only get to play with someone where they haven't discussed it or had a chance to discuss? Do they not play round at their mates or in clubs? I've certainly got the impression wrongly or rightly that Americans are more likely to be 'competitive' (be it warhammer or other games), but less sure about how they go about finding games outside tourneys.
Am I against supporting pick up play? No, not at all. Would I be bothered by points? not particularly, as I've said I'm neutral. I'm rather less neutral on official army lists. Do I think it is worth the hassle of all the work and effort to produce and maintain something that those who want it will still complain about it as they have for the last 30 years? No, at least in the UK it just isn't common enough to warrant that. Despite what people say points for games like AoS are not easy to do. One only has to look at the user attempts going on at the moment to see different views on how it should be done and arguments about whether it works or not. KOW is piss easy next to AoS, but I suspect there is still some fair effort that has gone into pointing stuff.
Things are VERY different outside the UK.
In Australia, and from everything I have heard the US is in the same boat we are, it is not umheaed of to play games in your garage with friends but the vast majority of games take place between two people who meet at a store that might have seen each other around but probably don't know each other's names. You ask if they want a game, if so how many points, introduce myself and then start setting up.
As for clubs, they are rare here but most I have encountered are tied to a store that they use for tables and as a venue. Not many of us will have a table or two at home to invite people over to play on so if you are organizing a game in advance you still meet at the store to play.
I don't know about Europe, but I didn't think they were the same as the UK so I'd guess they lean more towards the pick up community.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
puree wrote: I would be interested in why you think that? I'd say it is not even remotely close to normal. At least in the UK the only pick up games that I ever see happens in GW stores, and a portion of that is between kids who don't have valid armies anyway and are not playing by any 'pickup friendly rules' beyond just using what they have (AoS style in fact). For any store with a couple of tables being played on there will be dozens of games going on in clubs or houses between people who know each other and have arranged a game and agree what they will bring etc. Those settings and players are also more than capable of coming up with their own army list rules that suits their preferences or campaigns if they want that sort of restriction etc. I'm sure the smallish group of people I play with does more gaming than the nearest GW store does, and they are pretty much all pre-arranged.
Is it different outside the UK, maybe I don't know. Do Americans only get to play with someone where they haven't discussed it or had a chance to discuss? Do they not play round at their mates or in clubs? I've certainly got the impression wrongly or rightly that Americans are more likely to be 'competitive' (be it warhammer or other games), but less sure about how they go about finding games outside tourneys.
Am I against supporting pick up play? No, not at all. Would I be bothered by points? not particularly, as I've said I'm neutral. I'm rather less neutral on official army lists. Do I think it is worth the hassle of all the work and effort to produce and maintain something that those who want it will still complain about it as they have for the last 30 years? No, at least in the UK it just isn't common enough to warrant that. Despite what people say points for games like AoS are not easy to do. One only has to look at the user attempts going on at the moment to see different views on how it should be done and arguments about whether it works or not. KOW is piss easy next to AoS, but I suspect there is still some fair effort that has gone into pointing stuff.
Things are VERY different outside the UK.
In Australia, and from everything I have heard the US is in the same boat we are, it is not umheaed of to play games in your garage with friends but the vast majority of games take place between two people who meet at a store that might have seen each other around but probably don't know each other's names. You ask if they want a game, if so how many points, introduce myself and then start setting up.
As for clubs, they are rare here but most I have encountered are tied to a store that they use for tables and as a venue. Not many of us will have a table or two at home to invite people over to play on so if you are organizing a game in advance you still meet at the store to play.
I don't know about Europe, but I didn't think they were the same as the UK so I'd guess they lean more towards the pick up community.
Speaking of Europe, I can tell you that the "Warhammer scene" in Portugal has slowly whittled during the last decade (Due in part to GW's actions and in part to the rise of games like Warmahordes/Malifaux/X-wing/etc).
GW games tournaments/events here are few and far between, and most (I'd say 70-80%) of the action has now gone to (very few) clubs, and mostly in the Lisbon area. That being said, of the people I know that play in those clubs, the pick up "style" is still being used - they agree on points and then just bring an army on the agreed date - that is if they don't have one in the trunk of the car to begin with.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/11/25 14:23:00
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
In Sweden at least there are very few pick-up games (by which I mean games played between people who don't know each other very well, who don't communicate before meeting and don't have an implied social contract partially determining what they will bring without asking first), simply because we don't have that many game stores. Most games are played at clubs or at home.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/11/25 14:43:25
In the U.S. pickup games are extremely common, but we do usually know each other's names beforehand. Come on jonolikespie, give us some credit
But designing a ruleset that is Only useable with one's best mates certainly cuts off a huge part of the market, and really limits the amount the game will be adopted (in most places).
I've been playing WFB on and off since it came out in 198?. 2003 would be probably near enough for 40k, can't remember exactly.
I can't talk to what you have seen only myself. WFB didn't have army lists when I started, and us kids didn't have more than a unit or 2 each. All our games were pre-arranged either at the games club or someones house. Back then GW had very few stores and the nearest would have been about 60 miles away. I'm not sure they even had game tables back then, they were not a GW only store but a general game store.
The only pick up games I've seen since are the ones at the GW stores. Most other players arrange their games in advance at clubs or other regular meets. It is certainly possible that club goers in particular use points and army lists if they have nothing else in particular they are involved in. The game gives them that as a default, but if it didn't I have no doubt they would use what other default there was. Points alone would probably suffice, even historical gamers drop army lists and just use points. Imagi-nations and what ifs can be quiet popular.
I haven't seen a lot of AoS games yet, but I haven't exactly gone looking that hard. But the few I have seen have not had any house rules (that said I can't speak to some of the video reports I've also watched, though if they did use house rules they were not obvious and presumably took place before recording), we didn't house rule lists etc when we played, we eyeballed and just stuck down what we had for the factions were using which happened to provide close enough games.
Lets turn this around a bit. I have said that whilst I am happy with points being missing I also don't have an issue with having them either. If I or someone else turned up at random to wherever you play with a small 2000pt dino army, or the small 2000pt Artic Ogre Nomad Mourngang/Mammoth list converted with fur cloaks and hats etc on nice snow bases (one of the other armies I considered) all painted (table top quality, I'm no golden demon painter) would you refuse that pick up game due to lack of army list compliance. Will I be excluded from pick up games because the time effort and money didn't produce a 'legal' army. Is uber balance so important that rather than play with someone you would refuse a game, would you even think about talking and ask whether I can maybe drop a unit or something as your more rounded army can't handle that heavy emphasis I have? Should pick up games not also include those who have focused on the minis they want. Why exclude a set of potential players who only want to do minis they can really 'get into' as opposed to armies you want to impose on them.
