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.

Thread locked to merge into main thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/655877.page

Thanks!

With the advent of AoS, I am left with some thoughts:

What makes a tactical game have depth?

What makes a strategy game have depth?

These will naturally illicit different answers, but ultimately, the essence of a type of game, must remain consistent with its premise as well as varying degrees of depth. This leads to the question as to why you play a game and more indirectly, how I will make a point as to why I am not very inclined to play AoS.

Unfortunately in the community there is sort of a misnomer: most people who play table top games are sort of bifurcated - we have the people who are branded with the mark of 'I play to win to have fun' and those who wear the cloak of 'chillax'n''ve'fun '. If you pit yourself in any of these categories, you're limiting yourself, and not even playing a game anymore.

You play a game. Winning the game is the objective; its an inexorable condition that exists with any game. How you get there is the enjoyable, amusing part. It is however a novelty, and subject to the principles that operate outside of it, otherwise, it couldn't be identified as a game.

Look at those underlined words above and what they mean - don't deconstruct it to fit what you think it should mean, but what the words actually mean. Here's the 1828 defenition of these words:
Play - 1. To use any exercise for pleasure or recreation; to do something not as a task or for profit, but for amusement; as, to play at cricket.....
Game - 3. An exercise or play for amusement or winning a stake; as a game of cricket; a game of chess; a game of whist. Some games depend on skill; others on hazard.
Game - 1. 1. To play for a stake or prize; to use cards, dice, billiards or other instruments, according to certain rules, with a view to win money or other thing waged upon the issue of the contest.

Obviously, if you get together to play a game, its under the pretense that there are rules set in place in order to participate in that game. As to what the victory conditions are, that's held up to the people playing the game, and they can be whatever, but ultimately, no matter how abstract you try to make it, its about winning that thing/concept.

So, with any game, not all ideas of winning can be facilitated amongst its players - and remain amusing. You are always going to have that guy who's wanting to destroy the reason why everyone else is there. So this observation begs a question: what factors exist that capture the niche is designed for?

From a business perspective, placating to your patrons is paramount as that is why you are in business in the first place. Sometimes the patron may like the exceptional, new thing, but he probably also wants to have his very basic cake too. This is a balancing act, and something not done without understanding and accepting the principles governing this situation. Obviously, you may try to coerce, scheme, persuade and even lie to sell your product, but that will add up against your reputation, thus your business success. The patron will eventually regurgitate all of this 'newness'.

So let's consider the state of warhammer fantasy, now dubbed Age of Sigmar. Is it any surprise that the franchise is deteriorating? From a more external perspective,look at the US - our kids are taught that meaning is absolutely subjective - which includes: what makes tasteful, wholesome entertainment. This divides or makes inclusive things not meant to be separated or brought together. It's delusional.

Gamesworkshop is attempting to facilitate a franchise that can include anyone except for those who are looking for something to entertain more depth in their gameplay - which happens to be most sane wargamers.

Errrrm.... What?

I'd have brought some syrup if I had known you were serving up nothing but WAFFLE.

Don't really want to get into the philosophy of what is a "game" but I'll use previous GW games to argue:

1. Not all games are designed to "win"
2. Not all competitive games need strict balance to be fun.

1. Inquisitor. Is inquisitor not a game? I see lots of similarities between AoS and inquisitor, largely that there are no points at play. And although the goal of Inquisitor is not to "beat" your opponent as such, it is still very much a game in my eyes.

2. Necromunda/Mordhiem/Gorkamorka. These games do not have strict balance of points EXCEPT for the very first game of a campaign. These games all have monetary systems (credits/teef/gold) you start off with an equal amount but as you can earn or lose them between games, after the first there is no equal balance. One side will always have the better team.

And yet the game is still fun and people still play to win. Yes there are measures in place to give the underdog a chance to better his team in between games, but these measures have no bearing on the actual game itself (I.e each battle). Every battle is unbalanced.

I see AoS as somewhere in the middle of those above games.

And if that's something you don't like, you are entitled to be upset about it. Arguing AoS is not a game however is silly imo. It's just not the game for you. And you have my sympathy for that.

Gamesworkshop is attempting to facilitate a franchise that can include anyone except for those who are looking for something to entertain more depth in their gameplay - which happens to be most sane wargamers.

Generalisation on so many levels ahoy

But I see this thread going the same way as many others on AoS, so, unfortunately Im not going to eloborate any further.