Will it though? 1500pts of x meets 1500pts of y in the wild, roll scenario and 'go'? Fine for a pick up game, and necessary for a tournament. But not all games are pick up games or tournaments. What if I want a scenario, or a campaign. Or a themed mission that isn't out of a tournament packet.
How is having a point-based system not giving everyone what he wants?
But without any semblance of balance, it's very easy to screw over your opponent without trying to be a dick. You bring a fluffy list that turns out to be totally overpowered? You're going to steamroll your opponent. in the same vane if you bring a fluffy list that turns out to be totally useless, you're going to get steamrolled. Neither option is fun for either player.
Herzlos: You do not recall correctly though, like I said (I have the book in front of me) on page 176 and 177 are points and army construction guidelines for Ancient Britons and Romans.
I agree though, the game is put forward as best played without points and with a GM and narrative scenarios, and many cool examples of this are given. However, the game also acknowledges that many players like to play pointed games, and so provides a schema for doing that as well.
If GW had provided a similar appendix to Age of Sigmar, we'd not be having half of these conversations.
Thanks. I suspected there were but remember someone else saying it didn't. I've only played it once and given it a quick read through so I'm no expert. I know the army lists have points as I have some of them too.
Talys wrote: @keezus - I completely agree with you. The Imperial Knight is a far superior and technically difficult to tool model. It's also newer and more expensive.
Anyone who has looked at sprues of the two side by side would agree that the IK has much more detail on it and cost GW more to tool.
Try inserting: Kastellan Robot into the arguement instead of Wraithknight since you totally missed my point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On an aside, the Age of Sigmar terrain has some elements that are of interest to me. They seem to have reduced the quantity of Skulls but amped up all the other ridiculous gargoyle / wings imagery. Hopefully these are separate pieces and we'll have some multi-use generic terrain that we can use to bulk up our tables.
While the realm gates and crazy altar things are pretty cool looking and well sculpted, they're pretty useless in non AoS games as they seem intended as placeholders to confer random buffs as opposed to dedicated things you can climb/scale, block movement and/or LOS.
notprop wrote: I would imagine that a company that makes nothing but big Robot models would be more efficient at making big robots than one that doesn't.
The other on also has European manufacture rather than Asian and a retail arm to support that make the product itself viable.
But the subject and overheads are irrelevant - it's the method of production that's in play.
The fact that they can make pre coloured pieces, mould detail on both sides of a single large piece etc has no relation to what they're doing it for, they could be making replicas of popular household appliances for all that it matters.
GW could probably have machines capable of this, but they gave all their truly surplus cash to the shareholders.
To tell the truth, I've been through that fire myself, so don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about. Why you would wish this on someone else knowing what it is like. Wow.
Why not say that in the first place rather than bang on about how other people you know have been through it?
Either way, I'm not wishing it on anyone, you have yet again read something in a post that wasn't there, I've said (twice) that the staff who weren't in a place to make decisions and who would merely be caught in the fallout if GW went under would have my utmost sympathy, and that there would be worse times than now to lose your job.
If you can find anywhere I've said "I really want GW to go under" please quote it back to me, as I can't remember any occasion where I've said such a thing. I've said that if they did, it would be their own fault, but that isn't remotely the same thing.
My criticism of GW is not borne of hatred or a desire to see them fail, it is out of frustration at seeing them fail to do basic things which would make an immeasurable difference to them as a company, such as taking over two decades and 15 (?) editions of the their two key systems and still fail to address key issues, or simply substitute those issues with others.
But hey if i say the sigmarines box is the same price as the terminator, but the terminators have weapon options. then i am hating Did they change the size to increase the price?
At least scibor miniatures will be the right size now.
I just saw the price on the new terrain kits... ouch. Its unfortunate that the Baleful Runegate is a double gate kit making it kind of pricy at $70CDN. IMHO, it would have made more sense for it to be one kit, which can be assembled with different gribbles and you could buy one Runegate for $40.
The archway isn't a bad deal, but seems to be unsalvagable if you want to have a non Age of Sigmar themed table.
I hold out hope that there will be a temple and/or ruined walls kit (Looked like there were some spoiled in the publicity shots, unless they are non-production masters) - preferably with the Age of Sigmar iconography to be glued on instead of sculpted right into it. The denser plastic they use for terrain makes de-skulling or in this case, de-Sigmaring the terrain a PITA.
notprop wrote: I would imagine that a company that makes nothing but big Robot models would be more efficient at making big robots than one that doesn't.
The other on also has European manufacture rather than Asian and a retail arm to support that make the product itself viable.
But the subject and overheads are irrelevant - it's the method of production that's in play.
The fact that they can make pre coloured pieces, mould detail on both sides of a single large piece etc has no relation to what they're doing it for, they could be making replicas of popular household appliances for all that it matters.
GW could probably have machines capable of this, but they gave all their truly surplus cash to the shareholders.
The product, geography and specialisation are incredibly relevant to manufacturing costs. Historically an hours wage for a Britton has been far in excess of that of a typical Asian worker. Historically the Asian worker will also be more productive.
I can't speak for details of Gundum models but a production line set up to make just them by team that has allot of experience in making them will be far better at it than one set up to make another product. I think you have look beyond the fact that they are both made from plastic.
It's quite likely that the Gundum Team could repurpose the GW line to make Gundums without much problem but that would be a result of their knowledge. GW may simply not have this knowledge to be able to compete in the same way. It's possible that the Gundum methods are entirely inappropriate to GWs products. As I say both being plastic doesn't make them interchangeable given my (our) limited knowledge beyond generalisations.
Also GWs reinvestment in production but I guess there's only so many plastic spamming machines you need in one place.
GW do pay dividend you're right, but they are still cash rich so that is not really relevant to why they don't do what they may or may not need or be capable of.
The discussion is about the technology not the costs.
If we were trying to make an argument about the viability of GW starting to make kits using some of the same tech that the likes of Bandai can be seen to be employing, then your points would be valid, but right now it's a question of who is capable of the most tricks when making new plastic toys.
I can't conceive of any reason why Gundam methods wouldn't be appropriate, they're just HIPS kits the same, the limited number I've owned could have been repackaged in a GW box and while they'd raise eyebrows for all sorts of reasons, the type of material etc wouldn't be one of them.
@notprop.
If GW plc keep dishing out more money on dividends than they are making profit, how much longer will they be cash rich?
I am sure If T.Kirby was not so close to retirement age, he might be looking at growing the business long term.Rather then chasing short term profit over long term growth.
But the cost of developing new production methods is not really the issue.
Its the fact GW plc state they make the best minatures in the world, when it can be argued they do not use the latest technology to back up this claim.
Azreal13 wrote: The discussion is about the technology not the costs.
If we were trying to make an argument about the viability of GW starting to make kits using some of the same tech that the likes of Bandai can be seen to be employing, then your points would be valid, but right now it's a question of who is capable of the most tricks when making new plastic toys.
I can't conceive of any reason why Gundam methods wouldn't be appropriate, they're just HIPS kits the same, the limited number I've owned could have been repackaged in a GW box and while they'd raise eyebrows for all sorts of reasons, the type of material etc wouldn't be one of them.
It's a business, cost is intertwined in every decision. You can't make a decision without knowing your cost position. So that really is very relevant especially when we may be talking about a capability that may cost a huge sum to obtain if for example you are a small medium sized company from the middle of England rather than a bigger toy multinational in SE Asia.
The discussion was why Gundum would be cheaper than a IK. Bandai have size and years of experience in making their Robots in plastic, GW doesn't.
If you have a manufacturing facility you are not going to want to look outside to make stuff, and if you can (or won't) buy in the expertise then you will have to develop it. It would seem GW have gone the latter route.
@ Lanrak, you can't bemoan a company for being run by Accountants (GW PLC Grrrr! ) then suggest that they are going to arbitrarily piss the money up the wall without a thought for the consequences. G do have issues with falling turnover but not terminally so.
It is not the tech used that would result in the best miniatures in the work it would be the design and skill that went into using it and the results obtained. Whether it is or isn't the best in the world is in the eyes of the be(share)holder.
Bandai's factory is heavily automated. Their setup looks pretty similar to videos I've seen out of the Lego factory. Their injection and molding technology can also product details down to 40 microns. GW's HIPS quality is good, but I've never seen .04 mm details on any of their kits.
I emailed them about the blight kings, just the typical cut and paste response though.
I'm afraid that at the moment we do not have any information about these products. With regards to existing products, if they have been removed from the website it means they are currently unavailable however we do not know whether they will return at this point.
All I can recommend at this time is keeping an eye on the web store and in White Dwarf for more information.
But hey if i say the sigmarines box is the same price as the terminator, but the terminators have weapon options. then i am hating Did they change the size to increase the price?
At least scibor miniatures will be the right size now.
the Stormcast Eternals Liberator box, while being the same price as a Terminator box, actually comes with more weapon options, and more parts cut (i.e. legs) for better detail...
i don't get the question, "Did they change the size to increase the price?"...
SE Liberators are a new product...
GW could have charged $60 if i am reading your logic correctly, like the BA and DA Terminator boxes, but didn't...
i would say that is a good thing...
as to Scibor minis, they cost more than GW minis...
if you want to pay more for worse minis, then more power to you...
it does go to show how some of the critique against GW is skewed into the realm of an illogical dislike of the company...
to all the people still going on about Gundam, looking at the sprues, it looks like the different colored bits on the same sprue are actually various sprues slotted together...
is that correct???
I thought people paid them for pretty models. Apparently, most gw collectors don't even bother,with the game.
Herzlos wrote:
I can't see a free for all doing anything but driving gaming styles further apart. With everything in the rules, you've got a good starting point.
I don't disagree, but bear in mind, there are as many gaming styles as gamers. A lot of people want something different. Your post implies, whether deliberately or not, that we should all be playing the same style. Thst diverging styles is a bad thing. I can't agree with that. Some of those styles are incompatible with each other. 'Play with likeminded individuals' is the most basic wargame advice any of us can get.
herzlos wrote:
It's much easier to make a narrative game out of a balanced one by dropping the balance, than it is to start with something with no balance.
In general, I am in full agreement with you herzlos. But this is gw we are talking about. Balance never rates all that highly. For right or wrong, I am simply suggesting a way of making the mess work.
Vermis wrote:
Funny how companies with a lot fewer resources (sometimes just one guy with a friendly local gaming group for playtesting. Playtesting! Imagine...) and sometimes with fairly large audiences of their own, manage to produce relatively tight and well-recieved games.
Funny that. I play those games too, and celebrate their achievement, and hold them up as examples of 'doing it right'. Warmachine hordes, infinity, dropzone etc.
Thing is, they're smaller, more focused and can just get on with the game. Not all of them have massive in house manufacturing, a massive retail arm that is essentially a worldwide thing etc. bigger company, more things to deal with.
insaniak wrote:
That's not giving everyone what they want.
That's giving the people who want half a game that they can finish themselves what they want .
It's the equivalent of going to the movies , and getting half an hour of scene-setting and then just a blank screen for the next hour so that people can imagine for themselves how everything turned out.
If I want to create a game myself, I can do that without giving GW a cent .
Isn't it?
Well unless you have a magic rules set that perfectly mutates itself for every gamer, the best you can do is a basic, open ended thing thst people can push in whatever direction they want.
You talk of movies, I can talk of kit cars and diy sets.
Blacksails wrote:.
Precisely.
Just the kind of work the largest wargaming company should be expected to put in for a flagship product.
A company that sees themselves as a model making company first and foremost.
Blacksails wrote:
That is not a contradiction. By removing all balancing mechanisms, it has to put it in the hands of the players because there's no way else to deal with it. What players decide to do isn't necessarily balance, and the base game has no outline for even an approximation of balance.
So the tool they use is the playerbase. And social contract. Seems there is a mechanism in place. As unsavoury as it is.
Blacksails wrote:
No, because a game that is easy to play, simple to understand, has little to no rule loopholes or vague wording, and has a tested method of determining balanced forces and an army building mechanism will work for any kind of play. No one will have to argue about what rule 'x' means, or that army 'Y' is horribly underpowered, because everything would be tested. You can still give players all the control they want and still provide a game that has frunctional rules with no ambiguity and a strong baseline to determine the relative strength of units.
Oh I agree blacksails. In general, this is how I feel about things, and why I prefer infinity and warmahordes for my games. Then again, Considering some of the people I play against regularly, I'm quite open to the whole 'social contract' idea and co-operation as a means of affecting balance. Then again, it only really works with like minded friends. Which is, ironically, the target audience gw seem to be reaching for
Blacksails wrote:
Simple stuff. You can take a super ultra tournament game and play it like its mega casual, super lopsided, campaign/scenario driven truly beer and pretzels kind of game. You can't do it the opposite.
I dunno. I find the super symmetric scenarios in warmachine quite stifling for narrative missions. It's great for pugs and tournaments, and necessary, I would say. considering some of the missions and home brewed scenarios I play with my more casual friends, this wouldn't hold much interest.
Blacksails wrote:
Its not a fallacy. I see historicals thrown around a lot as a counter example. The issue is that some use a different method of 'army building', where the forces are either pre-generated for a specific scenario, or incredibly limited within a strict historical context. Playing historicals means that you're either re-enacting a specific example where the forces are already defined, or you're playing a 'what-if' scenario, but still using historical examples for what an army would have looked like in that day and age.
The same cannot be true for a fantasy game or sci-fi game. It just can't. Which means that line of thinking in the context of a fantasy or sci-fi game doesn't hold much water.
Why not? 'Lets play a themed mission, where my spec ops units are trying to infiltrate your skirmish line', or where 'my third company is going to affect a company scale drop pod assault on the government palace,like in imperial armour 3'.
My thinking is this: sure, you can take whatever you like. But should you? Does it make sense within the context of the mission, the narrative and story being told, and would it fit within the wider context of the universe it inhabits? For example, my captain Titus of the third company mentioned above might desire a space marine power build for his mission. Chapter commander deadnight shakes his head and explains the chapter has other responsibilities, other commitments, including three other strike forces, various garrison duties and so on. Titus has his third company, and select support from the first and tenth company. Vehicles make no sense for a drop pod assault. Off you go Titus...
For every user elite army out there, you have a dozen armies without any elite support. Such is the nature of conflict. Do as well as you can with what you have to hand being the operative word, rather than 'here, have the keys to the armoury, and take what you like'
It's not different for fantasy games.
I know where you're coming from. You feel you should be allowed to take whatever you like to the table, so long as it's withintherules, and obeys the army restrictions.for pugs and tournaments, I fully agree. I think player freedom is a hugely important thing. However, freedom isn't free. Great Freedom implies great responsibility. And like I said, outside of pick up gsmes, and within the context of specific scenario and narrative play, I feel the internal restrictions of that setting, and 'what makes sense' should take precedence over my 'right' to go off and take whatever the heck I feel like
Blacksails wrote:
So, points costs are therefore the best option for a game that offers the players plenty of customization and free reign to build forces within some constraints. A properly done system will be heavily tested to ensure as level a playing field as possible. From there, players can either play pick-up games with equal forces, or decide to play a scenario, where they elect to have unequal forces, also based on points.
The only thing that would a game rigid would be the player's inability to think outside the box. You are always free to ignore and change whatever you like in a ruleset. Having a well implemented points system allows for all kinds of play.
Oh I agree, one hundred percent. Bear in mind blacksails, when I'm talking here, I'm talking specifically within the context of gw games and doing the best I can to make them work.
Blacksails wrote:
I'm not seeing the issue or your point. Just go play the scenario you want. Ignore the points. You can do what you like with the rules.
Perfect attitude. hats off.
Blacksails wrote:
Making a good game also goes a long way.
Sure does. If anyone asks me my issues with aos, it's not the lack of points, it's the lack of 'interesting' rules, and 'interesting' game mechanics.
Deadnight wrote: Isn't it?
Well unless you have a magic rules set that perfectly mutates itself for every gamer, the best you can do is a basic, open ended thing thst people can push in whatever direction they want.
A ruleset doesn't have to be basic and unfinished in order for players to do what they want with it.
As others have pointed out, if you want to play a scenario game with a pointed system, you can just ignore the points. Going the other way, though... that's much harder.
And that's the point here. The system that gives the most people what they want is a system that offers a complete, balanced, functional game system. Because the people who just want something that they can tinker with and alter to suit themselves can do that just as easily (if not more easily) with that system than they can with a system that just assumes you'll work it out yourself...
You talk of movies, I can talk of kit cars and diy sets.
A DIY set is specifically sold as a DIY set.
Is there anything on the AoS box that suggests that players need to finish writing the rules themselves in order to have a finished product?
Frankly, the comments about players wanting to have their 'hands held' puzzle me. If I'm buying a game, of course I want the game's creator to tell me the 'right' way to play their game. That's why I bought their game!.
That doesn't mean that I can't alter that game to suit myself. My family has been playing Monopoly with our own house rules for more than 30 years, even though it comes with a complete set of finished rules in the box. A game doesn't have to be unfinished in order for players to tailor it to suit themselves. But publishing unfinished rules just means that those players who do just want a game that they can play without having to write their own rules are immediately excluded.
And the moment you're deliberately excluding a portion of your potential customer base, you're most certainly not crafting something that works for everyone...
Rayvon wrote: I emailed them about the blight kings, just the typical cut and paste response though.
I'm afraid that at the moment we do not have any information about these products. With regards to existing products, if they have been removed from the website it means they are currently unavailable however we do not know whether they will return at this point.
All I can recommend at this time is keeping an eye on the web store and in White Dwarf for more information.
So no help at all, as expected I guess.
Gone off sale to be re-released with round bases. I don't know why they won't just share that, but apparently that's why.
insaniak wrote: Frankly, the comments about players wanting to have their 'hands held' puzzle me. If I'm buying a game, of course I want the game's creator to tell me the 'right' way to play their game. That's why I bought their game!.
That doesn't mean that I can't alter that game to suit myself. My family has been playing Monopoly with our own house rules for more than 30 years, even though it comes with a complete set of finished rules in the box. A game doesn't have to be unfinished in order for players to tailor it to suit themselves. But publishing unfinished rules just means that those players who do just want a game that they can play without having to write their own rules are immediately excluded.
And the moment you're deliberately excluding a portion of your potential customer base, you're most certainly not crafting something that works for everyone...
Exactly. The white knight brigade seems shocked that anyone would want the game they bought to function. Buying models purely to build and paint is fun; I've done it plenty of times. But if I'm purchasing a ruleset, I expect to play the game. Otherwise, I may as well dig out my action figures from when I was 8 and start making laser noises.
At best, Age of Shareholders is a terribly-executed ruleset. At worst, it's a shoddy document rushed out just so GW can claim that they still make more than one game. Just because some overly-dedicated fans can turn it into something roughly functional, that doesn't mean that it's a legitimate game.
I disagree that it is easier to balance historical rules because there is no difference between humans and humans.
There is a huge difference between a mediaeval knight on armoured horse, a peasant with a fire hardened stick, and a Roman Legionary. Not to mention the effect of "monsters" like elephants, camels and scythed chariots.
Wargames Research Group Ancients rules list 8 morale/training classes, 19 troop formation/armour classes, with five more variations for trained troops and camels, 15 weapon classes plus shields, and special rules for different field fortifications and biological weapons like bees and flaming pigs.
The amount of possible variation is huge, yet the rules were used successfully in tournament play for over 20 years and basically were the world standard.
It's true that not all historical games use points values. WRG uses a combination of points and army lists (a similar idea to the old FOC chart.) However it is extremely unusual for historical games to just let players take whatever forces they like.
In AOS balance is to be achieved by three mechanisms.
1. Scenarios.
The key assumption here is that GW will create balanced scenarios, which presumes they already have a balance system.
Any way, balanced scenarios are not much use for players who want to set up their own forces and scenarios.
2. The Sudden Death rule.
This is useless for several reasons:
A. All units are not equal, so just outnumbering the enemy is not necessarily a strong advantage.
B. If you outnumber the enemy by 33%, and grant them Sudden Death, you might as well go on placing units and outnumber them by 400%.
C. One of the Sudden Death conditions is crap anyway -- the one where you need to win by turn 4.
3. The table set-up phase in which you lay out terrain, pick an area, then alternate placing units until you have finished.
This actually is quite an interesting idea, though arguably it is just changing the army list creation to an on the fly method. Also, without knowing the relative strength of units, you can't be sure you are laying out a viable force.
Rayvon wrote: I emailed them about the blight kings, just the typical cut and paste response though.
I'm afraid that at the moment we do not have any information about these products. With regards to existing products, if they have been removed from the website it means they are currently unavailable however we do not know whether they will return at this point.
All I can recommend at this time is keeping an eye on the web store and in White Dwarf for more information.
So no help at all, as expected I guess.
Gone off sale to be re-released with round bases. I don't know why they won't just share that, but apparently that's why.
Cheers for that, I was hoping they had not gone for good, you never really know nowadays !
Herzlos wrote:
I can't see a free for all doing anything but driving gaming styles further apart. With everything in the rules, you've got a good starting point.
I don't disagree, but bear in mind, there are as many gaming styles as gamers. A lot of people want something different. Your post implies, whether deliberately or not, that we should all be playing the same style. Thst diverging styles is a bad thing. I can't agree with that. Some of those styles are incompatible with each other. 'Play with likeminded individuals' is the most basic wargame advice any of us can get.
There's no reason a good ruleset ties gamers down to a certain play style, in the way that something like AoS forces a super casual play style. With clear rules and reasonable balance, you can play it however you want.
Herzlos wrote:
I can't see a free for all doing anything but driving gaming styles further apart. With everything in the rules, you've got a good starting point.
I don't disagree, but bear in mind, there are as many gaming styles as gamers. A lot of people want something different. Your post implies, whether deliberately or not, that we should all be playing the same style. Thst diverging styles is a bad thing. I can't agree with that. Some of those styles are incompatible with each other. 'Play with likeminded individuals' is the most basic wargame advice any of us can get.
There's no reason a good ruleset ties gamers down to a certain play style, in the way that something like AoS forces a super casual play style. With clear rules and reasonable balance, you can play it however you want.
Make no mistake herzlos. I'm pretty much in agreement with you. Thing is, there are terms and conditions. You said it yourself. 'A good rules set'. Gw games are not generally, and cannot be regarded as A 'good rules set'. theyre functional at best, if clunky, bloated and somewhat counter intuitive.
My whole position on aos (and like I said, I'm not a fan of it - it's simply not 'interesting') is based on how best to make it work. Which is more of a side step, and an approach to gaming from a different perspective and a different attitude, rather than 'make a better game', or 'but it should be a better game'. The latter two are true, and accurate, but also pointless (aos pun!). They won't happen. Gw simply isn't interested. i also believe, as gamers, it is partly our responsibility to be the architects of our own happiness with regard to our hobby.
Azreal13 wrote: The discussion is about the technology not the costs.
If we were trying to make an argument about the viability of GW starting to make kits using some of the same tech that the likes of Bandai can be seen to be employing, then your points would be valid, but right now it's a question of who is capable of the most tricks when making new plastic toys.
I can't conceive of any reason why Gundam methods wouldn't be appropriate, they're just HIPS kits the same, the limited number I've owned could have been repackaged in a GW box and while they'd raise eyebrows for all sorts of reasons, the type of material etc wouldn't be one of them.
Heck, it's not even just Gundams. I've bought three kits of the Edelweiss (tank from Valkyria Chronicles), and the main gun barrel is a single piece. That's right, one piece, with an open gun barrel and details on it, and I didn't have to glue two halves together.
Azreal13 wrote: The discussion is about the technology not the costs.
If we were trying to make an argument about the viability of GW starting to make kits using some of the same tech that the likes of Bandai can be seen to be employing, then your points would be valid, but right now it's a question of who is capable of the most tricks when making new plastic toys.
I can't conceive of any reason why Gundam methods wouldn't be appropriate, they're just HIPS kits the same, the limited number I've owned could have been repackaged in a GW box and while they'd raise eyebrows for all sorts of reasons, the type of material etc wouldn't be one of them.
Heck, it's not even just Gundams. I've bought three kits of the Edelweiss (tank from Valkyria Chronicles), and the main gun barrel is a single piece. That's right, one piece, with an open gun barrel and details on it, and I didn't have to glue two halves together.
My Dragon Company Tank kits where like that too. So many options and so many amazing detailed bits.
Tank barrel was drilled, one piece and had a nice curve in it.
I could use etched brass OR plastic for plenty of bits.
All hatches could be open or closed plus the gun could be full assembled inside the turret if I wanted complete with gun, sights and turret rotatory wheel.
Suspension that mean't I could change how the tracks sit on the wheels.
The tracks was this rubber stuff that fit perfectly and looked amazing.
Decals that looked perfect compared to GW ones which have too much of that clear stuff.
All in a cool package that cost less than half the price of a Leman Russ. It was bigger, has more stuff, more options and more detail and nearly no mold lines. Honestly I think GW is falling behind. Other companies do amazing things with their models but don't cost nearly as much.
In a similar vein I have a Tamya Tiger that is almost as big as a baneblade, much better detailed, a much more complex kit, and cost me $50 aud compared to a $86ish aud leman Russ which really does look like a toy next to it.
GW really can't compete with historicals imo, ESPECIALLY once brass etch gets involved.
jonolikespie wrote: In a similar vein I have a Tamya Tiger that is almost as big as a baneblade, much better detailed, a much more complex kit, and cost me $50 aud compared to a $86ish aud leman Russ which really does look like a toy next to it.
GW really can't compete with historicals imo, ESPECIALLY once brass etch gets involved.
Plus they last a very long time.
So many of these kits we have today are from the 70s. Only the materials change but the designs aren't always new ones. For example I have some Frog 1/72 models from 1972 and they are exactly the same as the airfix kits purchased in 2012. I know a lot of my Napoleonic are very old models as well. Just the materials are changed as time goes on.
Sometimes they update, like I have the latest update of the British Waterloo command set coming which was re done for the anniversary so I look forward to seeing what they improve there.
Some historic kits are duds though, but I think most are way ahead of GW.
Kilkrazy wrote: I disagree that it is easier to balance historical rules because there is no difference between humans and humans.
There is a huge difference between a mediaeval knight on armoured horse, a peasant with a fire hardened stick, and a Roman Legionary. Not to mention the effect of "monsters" like elephants, camels and scythed chariots.
No whether there are humans or non-humans makes no difference. But the power levels between the weakest and most powerful unit does.
For example, balancing dwarves and humans? No problem. But when you're balancing a game where the weakest unit is an archer with a bow, and the most powerful unit is invincible machine the size skyscraper that isn't meant to be able to destroyed even by a million archers with bows (it could conceivably just step on all of them), then there is a problem balancing the game.
In the following scale image, should it be possible for any number of grots to kill the Warlord Titan? I think not.
Spoiler:
The better question is: do you want a game where such disparities exist? Where there are fortresses with void shield generators and vortex missiles, in the same game as jetfighters, giant dragons, and essentially 20th century infantry equipped with laser rifles?
Is that just a stupid game? The thing with Warhammer 40k is there is a group of people who could care less about "balance" and would rather see the awesomeness of a titan (I'm talking about papa bear, not the little imperial knights) and quiver with excitement at the prospect of a 2' or 3' tall model in a game with 1" tall models; or they love flying jets and defending superfortresses that are by design "indestructible". They want Clash of the Titans -- epic tales of heroes and gods -- not re-enactments of the Hundred Years' War.
And then there are people who want to treat 40k as a more "serious" wargame, where the two sides are actually trying to play a futuristic version of a historical game. I think it's fundamentally impossible to have a game that makes both sides happy, and it's fundamentally impossible to put people from both camps on one table and say, "Enjoy!" They'll both think the other person is crazy.
Here's a parallel question: How would the battle of Marathon be balanced if the Persians were led by Mithras (the god of war and the sun), with Rostam, Ramsar, and Zoroaster as heroes, and the Greeks were led by Athena and Poseidon, with heroes of Odysseus, Heracles, and Pythia-- all written "to lore"? How would you balance Medusa's head -- instantly petrifying 1,000 Persians? How do you kill Heracles, when he just can't be killed?
The answer, of course, is that it would be a an "Age of Sigmar" type game the focus becomes the playground for the Gods and Immortals, rather than regimented battle. Because what's the point of a regiment, or indeed, a navy, when Poseidon can flick his wrist and sink all your ships? The whole idea of the heroes of myth, after all, is that a single hero is more powerful than vast armies. The allure of such games and hobbies is the escapism of controlling such awesomeness (and not everyone finds that alluring at all).
It's just what rocks your boat, and what you find "fun" in a game. Me? When it comes to the tabletop, the importance of strategy, tactics, and any semblance of "balance" of the units is just greatly overshadowed by the social aspects of oooing and ahhing at new models, a chance to socialize with buddies and move around neat toys and roll dice. In other words, I would gladly accept the unbalancing, silly stupid powerful model... as long as it were awesome enough.
Blacksails wrote: Talys, what drawback would 40k have if every unit was appropriately pointed for its tabletop ability?
None at all. And I'm not suggesting that the perfect should be the enemy of the better. Game systems should always strive for "more balance" given whatever models are out there, I think.
However, if the question is, "This Bloodthirster | Helldrake | Revenant Titan is too powerful. Let's remove it?" My answer would almost universally be "no.".
Also, I'm not a fan of weakening mythologically powerful creatures, or mythologically powerful wizards. If Gandalf the White is in a game, by golly, he should be indestructible, and I don't care how that wrecks game balance. Of course, it's equally stupid to say, "Take Gandalf and win; don't take Gandalf and lose." So, it becomes incumbent on the scenario designer to say, the Gandalf side has goals other than just to kill off all the orcs.. because we know what Gandalf can do to a sea of them, right? The point is, I like characters like Gandalf in the game, even if he's the equivalent of 10,000 foot soldiers. I like Balrogs, even though the dwarves should have no chance of hurting it.
Likewise, if you had a superheroic character in a unit (like a 1,000 year old Dante), with his support units around him, yeah, he should be nigh unkillable. Or if you have a Warlord Titan, the object should be something OTHER than "kill the Warlord Titan". But I would love to see a game with a Warlord Titan! (how to move him... uh....)
Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.
It's a gift. You wouldn't credit it but at 6'5" and 300lbs I can still sneak up on people in real life.
Had a subsequent, more on topic, thought too, Talys would be much better served by RPGs than by wargames, I'm sure a Thirster is ridiculous to deal with in the FFG titles.
Talys wrote: Also, I'm not a fan of weakening mythologically powerful creatures, or mythologically powerful wizards. If Gandalf the White is in a game, by golly, he should be indestructible, and I don't care how that wrecks game balance. Of course, it's equally stupid to say, "Take Gandalf and win; don't take Gandalf and lose." So, it becomes incumbent on the scenario designer to say, the Gandalf side has goals other than just to kill off all the orcs.. because we know what Gandalf can do to a sea of them, right? The point is, I like characters like Gandalf in the game, even if he's the equivalent of 10,000 foot soldiers. I like Balrogs, even though the dwarves should have no chance of hurting it.
On one level, this is one of the good things about the inclusion of fortifications in 40K... It allows you to include a little more firepower without breaking your light and fluffy army. Want to run an entire army of Gretchin, but still need to be able to damage armour? Throw in a plasma annihilator! Yay!
Because, while I agree that it's perfectly acceptable in a scenario-based game to have things that can't be hurt, for regular gameplay there has to be something that evens the playing field, so that the game is still fun for both players when you're not playing the game like a role-play.
Blacksails wrote:Which you can do in a system with appropriate points for the tabletop abilities.
They would just cost a feth ton.
Holy sweet mother of all that is soft and fluffy, Az, you thrice cursed ninja.
Well sure, but then Gandalf would be 100,000 points, and you'd never get to play him. Which is my point: I want to see Gandalf the White, in a battle against an minions of evil. And seeing him part them in a cinematic fashion is pretty cool. Or a Balrog destroy an army of dwarves.
Plus, like I've mentioned in other threads, force multipliers make all this really ahrd to calculate out, because units A B and C are different in values to taking them as a group. Taking out all the cool stuff leads to "blandness" to some.
I simply find my entertainment and escapism in a different place than "balance and strategy"... for tabletop miniatures... that's all.
Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.
And I'm happy for you, that you do what you like. It's too bad that you have to be so unhappy that I like something different.
I would suggest that you probably won't ever be happy with Games Workshop products, because this isn't their focus. Fortunately for me, cool miniatures are very much their focus, with a playable, fun -- and points-unbalanced -- game.
Getting Apocalpyse in your 40k is not the same as getting chocolate in your peanut butter! It's apocalyptic! Weakening mythologically powerful creatures is hardly the issue when they belong in a different scale of game in the first place, right?
insaniak wrote: Because, while I agree that it's perfectly acceptable in a scenario-based game to have things that can't be hurt, for regular gameplay there has to be something that evens the playing field, so that the game is still fun for both players when you're not playing the game like a role-play.
Yes, I agree
And like I said, the perfect should not be the enemy of the better, which often is the case of what happens with GW rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Juicifer wrote: Getting Apocalpyse in your 40k is not the same as getting chocolate in your peanut butter! It's apocalyptic! Weakening mythologically powerful creatures is hardly the issue when they belong in a different scale of game in the first place, right?
But if nobody wanted them, nobody would buy the models, and it wouldn't matter, right?
Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.
And I'm happy for you, that you do what you like. It's too bad that you have to be so unhappy that I like something different.
I would suggest that you probably won't ever be happy with Games Workshop products, because this isn't their focus. Fortunately for me, cool miniatures are very much their focus, with a playable, fun -- and points-unbalanced -- game.
Really? This again?
I'll decide what I am happy and unhappy with, thanks. I'll also decide what I do and don't think is dumb.
I think your idea of how to play the game is dumb.
I'm allowed to think this, and I'm allowed to tell you I think it's dumb, just like you're allowed to enjoy it, I'm not passively aggressively telling you to do something else, I'm just telling you that I think it's dumb.
But hey if i say the sigmarines box is the same price as the terminator, but the terminators have weapon options. then i am hating Did they change the size to increase the price?
At least scibor miniatures will be the right size now.
the Stormcast Eternals Liberator box, while being the same price as a Terminator box, actually comes with more weapon options, and more parts cut (i.e. legs) for better detail...
i don't get the question, "Did they change the size to increase the price?"...
SE Liberators are a new product...
GW could have charged $60 if i am reading your logic correctly, like the BA and DA Terminator boxes, but didn't...
i would say that is a good thing...
as to Scibor minis, they cost more than GW minis...
if you want to pay more for worse minis, then more power to you...
it does go to show how some of the critique against GW is skewed into the realm of an illogical dislike of the company...
to all the people still going on about Gundam, looking at the sprues, it looks like the different colored bits on the same sprue are actually various sprues slotted together...
is that correct???
cheers
jah
Not passive aggressive eh?
"if you want to pay more for worse minis, then more power to you..."
I didn't know about the extra parts , So that is good, but Terminators are a elite unit while the storm cast eternals are a main unit, so i find the price to steep.
The quality of scibor miniatures is not inferior, if you don't like their aesthetics that is your prerogative.
If you had watched the link, you could have seen how the multi colored sprue came out of the machine around 3:24
But hey if i say the sigmarines box is the same price as the terminator, but the terminators have weapon options. then i am hating Did they change the size to increase the price?
At least scibor miniatures will be the right size now.
the Stormcast Eternals Liberator box, while being the same price as a Terminator box, actually comes with more weapon options, and more parts cut (i.e. legs) for better detail...
i don't get the question, "Did they change the size to increase the price?"...
SE Liberators are a new product...
GW could have charged $60 if i am reading your logic correctly, like the BA and DA Terminator boxes, but didn't...
i would say that is a good thing...
as to Scibor minis, they cost more than GW minis...
if you want to pay more for worse minis, then more power to you...
it does go to show how some of the critique against GW is skewed into the realm of an illogical dislike of the company...
to all the people still going on about Gundam, looking at the sprues, it looks like the different colored bits on the same sprue are actually various sprues slotted together...
is that correct???
cheers
jah
Not passive aggressive eh?
"if you want to pay more for worse minis, then more power to you..."
I didn't know about the extra parts , So that is good, but Terminators are a elite unit while the storm cast eternals are a main unit, so i find the price to steep.
The quality of scibor miniatures is not inferior, if you don't like their aesthetics that is your prerogative.
If you had watched the link, you could have seen how the multi colored sprue came out of the machine around 3:24
Spoiler:
Land prices what they are in Japan, Bandai could sell that Shizuoka plant and buy GW about 3X over. It really brings home how small potatoes GW is in the grand scheme of the model building hobby when they put up a cute little statue and Sunrise, the creators of Gundam do this:
Spoiler:
Sunrise announced last year that they're looking into adding movement to the 60 foot tall statue. Let me know when GW's ready to enter the big leagues.
I have heard (and believe) that modeling in Asia is HUGE. Historical models, Sci Fi models, Anime models etc are all huge. So much so that some companies sell kits in Asia that do not get sold in the west (Dragon japanese Infantry come to mind).
But for Gundam to make 600 MILLION is more than I would have thought. Thats awesome.
I mean GW does what? 30 Million at their height? Or was it 10 million? Either way I am blown away by that figure.
@Jehan-reznor: thanks for the embedded video...
for some reason you-tube, and links to it, don't work on my iPad since i crossed the border to L.A., but embedded vids on here do...
it was just an honest question, as all i had seen were pictures of sprues, or the loose grey Gunpla extras sprues in bags at the shop...
i am trying to learn and expand my knowledge here...
i am not a fan of Scibor's sculpting, although i like his Dwarves more than his "not Space Marines"...
he has not moved far anough away from his earlier press-mold style for things like weapons and shields...
also his Spartans have very basic sculpting on the abdominal plates that pales in comparison to the SE Liberators, to my eye...
add to that the inherent issues that resin has (bubbles, warping, mold slips, mold wear and tear) versus HIPS make the SE Liberators higher quality sculpts in my opinion, and they are less expensive, with more options than an equivilant Scibor sculpt...
i am happy for the guy, that he is still trucking along, and becoming a better sculptor, after a decade of hard work, though...
i like to see the little guy succeed, in any business, but if you actually think that his Spartan sculpts are on par with GW's Liberators, i would have to disagree...
@agnosto: that is awesome...
i have a lot of love for the stuff that comes out of Japan...
it has had a huge influence in my life ever since i saw the first episode of Robotech when it came to American T.V. back in the day...
i even married a Japanese woman...
i just haven't bought a kit in 25 years, because Space Marines took over my painting time...
i actually started through scale model kits, before miniatures took over my life...
there is just something so compelling about trying to perfect the art of painting a 28mm mini...
@Swatakowey: last year's GW revenue figure was £113.5m, so about one third of Gundam...
jah-joshua wrote: @agnosto: that is awesome...
i have a lot of love for the stuff that comes out of Japan...
it has had a huge influence in my life ever since i saw the first episode of Robotech when it came to American T.V. back in the day...
i even married a Japanese woman...
i just haven't bought a kit in 25 years, because Space Marines took over my painting time...
i actually started through scale model kits, before miniatures took over my life...
there is just something so compelling about trying to perfect the art of painting a 28mm mini...
@Swatakowey: last year's GW revenue figure was £113.5m, so about one third of Gundam...
cheers
jah
We have that in common, first real anime was Robotech and I married a Japanese lady ad well but that was primarily a happenstance from living in Japan.
Kilkrazy wrote: I disagree that it is easier to balance historical rules because there is no difference between humans and humans.
There is a huge difference between a mediaeval knight on armoured horse, a peasant with a fire hardened stick, and a Roman Legionary. Not to mention the effect of "monsters" like elephants, camels and scythed chariots.
No whether there are humans or non-humans makes no difference. But the power levels between the weakest and most powerful unit does.
For example, balancing dwarves and humans? No problem. But when you're balancing a game where the weakest unit is an archer with a bow, and the most powerful unit is invincible machine the size skyscraper that isn't meant to be able to destroyed even by a million archers with bows (it could conceivably just step on all of them), then there is a problem balancing the game.
...
.
40K as a tabletop wargame doesn't include warmachines the size of skyscrapers. They are seen only in the fluff.
For example, balancing dwarves and humans? No problem. But when you're balancing a game where the weakest unit is an archer with a bow, and the most powerful unit is invincible machine the size skyscraper that isn't meant to be able to destroyed even by a million archers with bows (it could conceivably just step on all of them), then there is a problem balancing the game.
An entirely artificial problem as such a unit has absolutely no place in a 28mm game, or any wargame in fact. You can't just throw anything in a game and hope for the best, there has to be appropriate rules design.
Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.
And I'm happy for you, that you do what you like. It's too bad that you have to be so unhappy that I like something different.
I would suggest that you probably won't ever be happy with Games Workshop products, because this isn't their focus. Fortunately for me, cool miniatures are very much their focus, with a playable, fun -- and points-unbalanced -- game.
Really? This again?
I'll decide what I am happy and unhappy with, thanks. I'll also decide what I do and don't think is dumb.
I think your idea of how to play the game is dumb.
I'm allowed to think this, and I'm allowed to tell you I think it's dumb, just like you're allowed to enjoy it, I'm not passively aggressively telling you to do something else, I'm just telling you that I think it's dumb.
Azrael, I sincerely wonder if you can tell the difference between:
1. I think this game is dumb
2. Everyone other than you (ie the rest of us) think the game is dumb
One is an opinion I can respect if reasons are supplied. The other is an obviously untrue statement, as insulting and untrue as as, "You can be miserable, but the rest of us are having fun".
Stop speaking for nonspecific people, and I won't react that way to you.
By the way, you may think the way I game is dumb. That's just fine with me. Luckily for me, and unluckily for you, GW produces a game and models that are well suited for the way I play. Which obviously, I and at least the people I play with, do not think is dumb.
You know, creating awesome, fantastic battles in a fictional setting, where our top priority is socializing around the context of the cool miniatures that we spend thousands of hours modelling. And food and drink and catching up.
For example, balancing dwarves and humans? No problem. But when you're balancing a game where the weakest unit is an archer with a bow, and the most powerful unit is invincible machine the size skyscraper that isn't meant to be able to destroyed even by a million archers with bows (it could conceivably just step on all of them), then there is a problem balancing the game.
An entirely artificial problem as such a unit has absolutely no place in a 28mm game, or any wargame in fact. You can't just throw anything in a game and hope for the best, there has to be appropriate rules design.
As I said, GW clearly thinks it is appropriate, and this the polarization of players. Since Imperial Knight was voted favorite model of 2014, I'm clearly not alone in liking models of little and awesome size on the same game.
The problem is that I don't think you can reconcile the group that wants to see the French and English face off in Agincourt, and the group would rather see the French and English eaten by Godzilla and Mothra... in the same game.
You'll get people like Azrael (or you) who say that's just dumb, and people like me, who will say, well, how awesome is the Godzilla model? I don't think either group is wrong. It's just where you find your fun.
RoninXiC wrote: Point is still valid. How do you balance an imperial soldier to a carnifex. Yuo don't have to do that in an historical wargame.
You have to balance a Libyan light infantry skirmisher against an elephant, an organ gun, a Roman cavalryman, and a heavy scythed chariot.
It's done by appropriate points costs for each type of unit, and army lists that restrict the availability of units. Much like the system that 40K and WHFB used to have, imperfect through it was, which doesn't exist in AOS.
Historical designers also have to make their balancing produce historical results, a disadvantage that GW designers do not have.
To think about it logically, any wargame is an abstract system of mathematics, which must be solvable. GW didn't do such a bad job using their rule of thumb approach in 40K, considering. The problems arose largely because each edition of the game changed the values of some variables, and the codexes were never all fully updated to the new system. Also, each new codex changed more variables, especially by the inclusion of new special rules.
Kilkrazy wrote: 40K as a tabletop wargame doesn't include warmachines the size of skyscrapers. They are seen only in the fluff.
Anyway, this thread is about AOS, not 40K.
Yes, fair enough, but we were also comparing historicals.
Strictly speaking in Fantasy/Sigmar, balancing Bretonians against Dwarves is one thing, that's no different than balancing French and English. Throw in Nagash, Bloodthirsters, and Glotkin: what exactly should an archer or knight do?
If I were a knight, I would point my horse in the opposite direction and ride off the board.
Philosophically, the greatest sorcerer of all time doesn't belong on a battle board with common footsoldiers **if you care about balance** be cause such manifestations should exceed the value of an entire army a civilization could muster.
RoninXiC wrote: Point is still valid. How do you balance an imperial soldier to a carnifex. Yuo don't have to do that in an historical wargame.
You have to balance a Libyan light infantry skirmisher against an elephant, an organ gun, a Roman cavalryman, and a heavy scythed chariot.
It's done by appropriate points costs for each type of unit, and army lists that restrict the availability of units. Much like the system that 40K and WHFB used to have, imperfect through it was, which doesn't exist in AOS.
Historical designers also have to make their balancing produce historical results, a disadvantage that GW designers do not have.
Right, but historical designers don't have to deal with the first and most powerful necromancer who bound the Wind of Death to hos will, resurrected the kings of old to do his bidding and is the manifestation of time and death?
We are comparing historicals to show that very complex systems of games can be balanced, so why not AOS.
It is an assumption of Fantasy games that if Knights, etc are included as well as Nagash and so on, they must be able to fight each other. Otherwise why put them in the game? (To be honest, the reason I gave up WHFB in 2nd edition was because the 'Herohammer' approach meant there wasn't any point having armies since the bulk of troops were pretty much only scenery.)
It would be like making a historical game that pits a submarine against a Mahdist Sudanese army.
Deadnight wrote: i also believe, as gamers, it is partly our responsibility to be the architects of our own happiness with regard to our hobby.
I 100% agree with you here. Unfortunately, people use that as a reason to wave away the insulting effort GW puts into rules. When I'm architecting my own hobby time, I'm going to chose complete rules over beta (being generous) rules any day.
I agree too. And one way of doing that is to select a game that has a well written set of rules.
The more I think about AOS, the more I think that GW have got a balancing mechanism to help them make good scenarios. They may reveal it as the rumoured tournament advancedf rules later on.
Kilkrazy wrote: We are comparing historicals to show that very complex systems of games can be balanced, so why not AOS.
It is an assumption of Fantasy games that if Knights, etc are included as well as Nagash and so on, they must be able to fight each other. Otherwise why put them in the game? (To be honest, the reason I gave up WHFB in 2nd edition was because the 'Herohammer' approach meant there wasn't any point having armies since the bulk of troops were pretty much only scenery.)
It would be like making a historical game that pits a submarine against a Mahdist Sudanese army.
Precisely! Honestly, I don't think we are far apart in what we believe.
I believe that philosophically, Games Workshop wants fantasy to be a game that enacts the War of Heavens: Angels versus Demons; Immortals and the High Elves defeating the forces of Chaos and Death; Heroes and their Eternal Allies versus Villains and the Ruinous Powers. "Herohammer": 170 out of 200 models are just there to be stepped on by the divine forces, right?
So Age of Sigmar neatly solves the problem of the 170 models being irrelevant in the heavenly battle, and getting in the way of people starting the game because 200 models is too daunting...
Get rid of the 170 models, and make it a game about the 30 models that matter. It also fits neatly with GW's philosophy of selling fancy models even for their "basic troops", like Liberators, rather than the rank-and-file fantasy models of old.
In the sense that Age of Sigmar is an entertaining way to enact stories of immortal battles in the 9 realms characterizing the struggle between death, destruction, order, and chaos, I think Age of Sigmar succeeds (I know many disagree; I'm totally cool with that).
In the sense that Age of Sigmar is a wargame to enact large battles between humans, elves, dwarves, skaven, lizardmen, chaos, and the undead, I think it fails miserably. I'm not sure there's a lot of argument here, even from people who love AoS. This just isn't the game.
AoS could be used to enact small battles between these races, as long as you restricted your models to fairly mundane models, but what's the point? Small mundane battles are pretty boring, and there's no money in it. And if you want to play big battles between these races, there are WAY better systems than Age of Sigmar.
So it's just what you want -- if you are looking for Herohammer 2.0, you'll be pleasantly entertained; if you are looking for a "real" rank-and-file Fantasy wargame, I think you'll be disappointed. I think the there are people who like the idea of the Game of Heavenly Battles, and liekwise, I think that if you were a rank-and-file Fantasy Battle fan, I totally get why you'd be peeved!
To my previous point -- I don't think it's possible to make a GOOD game that can combine the 170 grunt units and the 30 godly units, not at the disparities that you see in End Times lore, because the 170 grunts are, as you put it, just movable scenery.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I agree too. And one way of doing that is to select a game that has a well written set of rules.
The more I think about AOS, the more I think that GW have got a balancing mechanism to help them make good scenarios. They may reveal it as the rumoured tournament advancedf rules later on.
Well, we know they have a balancing system of some sort, because they keep saying they have tournament rules coming. Then again Blizzard said Diablo 3 would have PvP for 3 years before finally conceding that serious PvP was impossible in Diablo 3 without ditching... everything... and put in a "brawl" system that anyone looking for PvP would be insulted at.
I don't think balancing is really that hard -- a combination of wounds and keyword restrictions that people have made up seem to be functional.
Of course, some units will be pointless (no pun intended!), because they will be really crappy models that there are better alternatives for. And that just goes back to the whole thing that sure, there are rules (Warscrolls) for your old models, but let's not kid ourselves -- this is a game about a small number of heroic models, a big chunk of which will be new.
I've had some great skirmish games with <5 models a side. It's all down to how the rules work at various levels.
No, I agree. Small != mundane. But, also, heroic != mundane.
To me, mundane means units that mimic real life in functionality, perhaps with magic in the place of technology. Where the upper limit of power is what is achievable using modified rules of physics.
Heroic, or "war of heavens" means units that are designed to be much tougher or more durable (like an infantryman that can take a cannonball in the chest as a glancing blow), with powers that would astound us today (like teleportation, summoning endless hordes, masking units in invisibility, instantly killing enemies, et cetera). The stuff of Marvel comics, where the upper limit of power is the imagination.
Edit: to your added point -- I don't know how AoS would work with 5 models per side, but at first thought, I don't imagine very well. Although I originally thought 5 imperial knights would be stupid too, and it turned out better than I expected. I would suspect it might work if all 5 models were large, superpremium models (like Bloodthirsters); but it would be really dumb with 5 ordinary humans versus 5 ordinary elves. My point about it not being any money is that GW wouldn't bother optimizing a game for 5 rank-and-file models, because their revenue comes from selling models -- preferably a lot of bigger, more expensive ones (therefore, their game must cater to that).
Talys wrote: I would suspect it might work if all 5 models were large, superpremium models (like Bloodthirsters); but it would be really dumb with 5 ordinary humans versus 5 ordinary elves.
Which is a shame because I'd buy so much stuff for a game with 5-15 humans Vs 5-15 elves. With the appropriate rules it'd be no different to 5 titans Vs 5 titans, but with a lot less cash and painting involved.
I also don't think you'd get any less game play using mortals instead of gods.
I think you are right about GW's vision for super-hero style battles.
It is a genre that does not interest me. I always felt the most interesting character in 40K was Ollanius Pius, until GW retconned him to a Terminator or something.
Talys wrote: I believe that philosophically, Games Workshop wants fantasy to be a game that enacts the War of Heavens: Angels versus Demons; Immortals and the High Elves defeating the forces of Chaos and Death; Heroes and their Eternal Allies versus Villains and the Ruinous Powers. "Herohammer": 170 out of 200 models are just there to be stepped on by the divine forces, right? So Age of Sigmar neatly solves the problem of the 170 models being irrelevant in the heavenly battle, and getting in the way of people starting the game because 200 models is too daunting...
I don't disagree with the intent, but GW could have done this without sending their Fantasy game of Rank, Flank and Maneuver to die in a fire. The old LOTR system did not do a bad job of doing epic fights between rank/file and powerful heroes. It had points values as well, so it really boggles the mind why AoS would dispense of them - other than Occam's Razor stating that having no points values would save a feth-ton of development time and money by not needing to balancing the units.
Yes, but the Sigmarine Statue is made from the most advanced statue creation process and ships with many user configurable options. It's level of detail featuring deep undercuts is way higher than the full size Gundam.
Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.
And I'm happy for you, that you do what you like. It's too bad that you have to be so unhappy that I like something different.
I would suggest that you probably won't ever be happy with Games Workshop products, because this isn't their focus. Fortunately for me, cool miniatures are very much their focus, with a playable, fun -- and points-unbalanced -- game.
Really? This again?
I'll decide what I am happy and unhappy with, thanks. I'll also decide what I do and don't think is dumb.
I think your idea of how to play the game is dumb.
I'm allowed to think this, and I'm allowed to tell you I think it's dumb, just like you're allowed to enjoy it, I'm not passively aggressively telling you to do something else, I'm just telling you that I think it's dumb.
Azrael, I sincerely wonder if you can tell the difference between:
1. I think this game is dumb
2. Everyone other than you (ie the rest of us) think the game is dumb
One is an opinion I can respect if reasons are supplied. The other is an obviously untrue statement, as insulting and untrue as as, "You can be miserable, but the rest of us are having fun".
Stop speaking for nonspecific people, and I won't react that way to you.
By the way, you may think the way I game is dumb. That's just fine with me. Luckily for me, and unluckily for you, GW produces a game and models that are well suited for the way I play. Which obviously, I and at least the people I play with, do not think is dumb.
You know, creating awesome, fantastic battles in a fictional setting, where our top priority is socializing around the context of the cool miniatures that we spend thousands of hours modelling. And food and drink and catching up.
How about ' A lot of people think that this game is dumb'?
Because that comes closest to truth.
Not everyone - but a lot of folks, myself included, think that this is really not a good direction for the game to take.
My suspicion has been, and remains, that Age of Stockholders will do better than Warhammer over a short term, then do worse than Warhammer over the long term.
That AoS is another example of GW going for an easy short term gain over a much more difficult long term gain.
They knew that there were problems with Warhammer - but they either had no real idea of how to repair those problems, or decided that repairing them was too difficult at this stage in Warhammer's life cycle.
At the same time, I believe that repairing those problems would have been better for the long term viability of Fantasy and of GW in a more general sense.
Also troubling is renaming every single fantasy critter that they can, in the vain hope that by doing so they can shore up their Moat and Castle IP... with a strategy that just won't work.
Having a structured competition structure would help maintain the game - as Magic the Gathering is, in an example, maintained in part by having a structured competition structure.
It is easy for a store to schedule a Magic tournament - which builds excitement, and helps drive sales.
GW used to experience much the same boost, back when they supported tournaments.
Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.
And I'm happy for you, that you do what you like. It's too bad that you have to be so unhappy that I like something different.
I would suggest that you probably won't ever be happy with Games Workshop products, because this isn't their focus. Fortunately for me, cool miniatures are very much their focus, with a playable, fun -- and points-unbalanced -- game.
Really? This again?
I'll decide what I am happy and unhappy with, thanks. I'll also decide what I do and don't think is dumb.
I think your idea of how to play the game is dumb.
I'm allowed to think this, and I'm allowed to tell you I think it's dumb, just like you're allowed to enjoy it, I'm not passively aggressively telling you to do something else, I'm just telling you that I think it's dumb.
Azrael, I sincerely wonder if you can tell the difference between:
1. I think this game is dumb
2. Everyone other than you (ie the rest of us) think the game is dumb
One is an opinion I can respect if reasons are supplied. The other is an obviously untrue statement, as insulting and untrue as as, "You can be miserable, but the rest of us are having fun".
Stop speaking for nonspecific people, and I won't react that way to you.
By the way, you may think the way I game is dumb. That's just fine with me. Luckily for me, and unluckily for you, GW produces a game and models that are well suited for the way I play. Which obviously, I and at least the people I play with, do not think is dumb.
You know, creating awesome, fantastic battles in a fictional setting, where our top priority is socializing around the context of the cool miniatures that we spend thousands of hours modelling. And food and drink and catching up.
Wow, missed this til Grump requoted it.
Where, when I repeatedly called your approach to the game dumb, did I say anything other than "I think?"
I don't speak for non-specific people, if I make some sort of general point in terms outside purely what I think, you can bet it's because that's an opinion I've seen repeated by different people in a regular basis. I realise this is the internet, the natural home of pedantry where nothing is true unless it can be cited and quoted in triplicate, but I still believe that sticking a metaphorical finger in the air as to the direction of popular opinion is an assumption that's fairly logical to make - spend enough time on this forum and you get a feel for which way the wind is blowing.
But, having said all that, I'll revise my stance a bit - playing the game the way you want to isn't nearly as dumb as making a game that can only work when played that way.
Where, when I repeatedly called your approach to the game dumb, did I say anything other than "I think?"
I don't speak for non-specific people, if I make some sort of general point in terms outside purely what I think, you can bet it's because that's an opinion I've seen repeated by different people in a regular basis. I realise this is the internet, the natural home of pedantry where nothing is true unless it can be cited and quoted in triplicate, but I still believe that sticking a metaphorical finger in the air as to the direction of popular opinion is an assumption that's fairly logical to make - spend enough time on this forum and you get a feel for which way the wind is blowing.
But, having said all that, I'll revise my stance a bit - playing the game the way you want to isn't nearly as dumb as making a game that can only work when played that way.
Yes, you did, Az. I even requoted it so you'd see what I was talking about:
Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.
You say this kind of thing a lot. The implication is that the rest of the community (other than me) are playing a game of skill rather than embarking on some ludicrous... game for girls? Which is more than a little bit chauvinistic, too; we get girls who game with us periodically, and they're very cool.
And I have no problem at all with your revised stance. I am a big tent guy, and think that a game is best when it makes as many people happy as possible.
How about ' A lot of people think that this game is dumb'?
Because that comes closest to truth.
Not everyone - but a lot of folks, myself included, think that this is really not a good direction for the game to take.
I would totally agree with you, man. Around half the people on this forum think it's dumb, if the poll in GD is to be believed, and more than that on Warseer (the sample size may be small). I'd even go so far as to say, half of the wargaming community or more probably find the game silly, dumb, or downright offensive (the latter category being reserved for Fantasy Battle people who had their game kicked out from under their legs).
But that still leaves somewhere between a quarter and a half of the wargaming community, I think (no, I have no statistics; this is just my hypothesis), which actually think that the game is fantastic, decent, or occasionally fun. As long as we're being reasonably polite towards them, and not denigrating to their type of enjoyment, I'm happy.
Personally, I'm in the "occasionally fun" and the "silly" categories of the two sides of the fence. As a game, I don't love Age of Sigmar, even though it's okay to play. If my buddies wanted to try out their newly painted army, I'd be happy to take it for a spin (besides, the games are relatively short); if they wanted to play it every week, I wouldn't. I dislike the lack of listbuilding in this incarnation, I'm not really a low model count guy, and as others have said, the game would be better with some form of easily balancing approximately that could be tweaked manually. None of these are game-breaking to me, but it's just not the game I'm looking for to play in my limited time.
As a modeler and painter, I really like the Sigmarites, and I'll probably buy most of the releases. But that's highly preferential: I really like Wood Elves too, and I bought their stuff even though I had no intent to play fantasy battle.
I don't think the intent of Age of Sigmar is to be ONLY a short term money boost, though I'm happy to concede that may be what it comes down to. It may play out exactly the way you describe; and it may also evolve into something else, in the same way that Rogue Trader evolved into modern 40k.
Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.
You say this kind of thing a lot. The implication is that the rest of the community (other than me) are playing a game of skill rather than embarking on some ludicrous... game for girls? Which is more than a little bit chauvinistic, too; we get girls who game with us periodically, and they're very cool.
And I have no problem at all with your revised stance. I am a big tent guy, and think that a game is best when it makes as many people happy as possible.
A Mary Sue is an idealized super character with no flaws.
A Mary Sue is an idealized super character with no flaws.
Well, thank you I was not familiar with the expression!
I will retract my comment about this, then -- though it's worth noting that when I click on your link, it says that the concept has drawn criticism from feminist writers.
I guess, though, since the number of females in GW's range is so tiny, it would be more accurate, then, to call them "Gary Stu".
Yes, you did, Az. I even requoted it so you'd see what I was talking about:
Azreal13 wrote:Meanwhile, the rest of us are usually playing a game to test our skill at that game against our opponent's skill, not embark on some ludicrous Mary Sue recreation of fluff.
You say this kind of thing a lot. The implication is that the rest of the community (other than me) are playing a game of skill rather than embarking on some ludicrous... game for girls? Which is more than a little bit chauvinistic, too; we get girls who game with us periodically, and they're very cool.
And I have no problem at all with your revised stance. I am a big tent guy, and think that a game is best when it makes as many people happy as possible.
.
So, if "the rest of us" aren't playing the game in a fluffy manner like you do, how else do you think we're playing?
I'm not saying "you are the only person in the world that plays this way" but right now, you are the person most actively advocating that playstyle and apparently endorsing GW's pursuit of this playstyle, therefore you represent that point of view. I represent the other point of view, so by "rest of us" I, I thought fairly obviously, am referring to those who share the view that things would be better as a game, rather than a dumbed down RPG.
I've had some great skirmish games with <5 models a side. It's all down to how the rules work at various levels.
AoS isn't intended to be a small game either. Which is a shame.
Oh absolutely, and I think most of us older players have had the same experience! Battletech, Infinity and Confrontation come to mind right off the bat as great small model count games.
Azreal13 wrote: So, if "the rest of us" aren't playing the game in a fluffy manner like you do, how else do you think we're playing?
I'm not saying "you are the only person in the world that plays this way" but right now, you are the person most actively advocating that playstyle and apparently endorsing GW's pursuit of this playstyle, therefore you represent that point of view. I represent the other point of view, so by "rest of us" I, I thought fairly obviously, am referring to those who share the view that things would be better as a game, rather than a dumbed down RPG.
I'm actually NOT advocating that for the game, and only minimally for the playstyle (lord, how many times can I say that I don't really like AoS that much as a game?). I'm stating that there is a percentage of people who quite enjoy it -- go look at the poll that was done here and on Warseer. I think it's important to:
1. Be respectful of people who do like it and not denigrate them as players 2. Recognize that there may be new players entering the wargame market who wouldn't play more complex games 3. Understand that there are people who like the models for what they are
I think it's fantastic that there's a game that fills this niche, as people that I would not have thought would be into miniatures are now looking at a miniature game. I am happy for them that there is something fun for these players; the alternative is being angry at Games Workshop for not making another game that would be for me. I have no energy or time to be angry about something that isn't targeted to me, and clearly, AoS is not targeted to steal players who are HAPPY with games with complex rules from those games. Keep in mind, too, that some of these people may then go on to try other games, and might like them -- thus growing the market.
Personally, I like the Sigmarite models more than anything about the game (and I will buy them), the fluff is a little interesting (I'll buy some, but not all of it), and the game is moderately fun, but not my thing to do regularly.
I enjoy games that has both heroic and nonheroic models on the same board and I like high model count games; I think AoS strips out the usefulness of everything nonheroic in an attempt to reduce model count and simplify the game.
Not really no. Competition breeds innovation. I am hoping to see more take up the challenge and provide a better war-game for everyone, and in turn I would hope GW will start producing a better product.
I really don't hate AoS, I don't see myself playing, but I can see what they are trying to do. Meh
IMHO, sandbox play and unbalanced war scrolls aside, I have to question exactly who GW thinks Age of Sigmar is marketed to? (Otiose, I know...)
From a gaming perspective: As previously stated, players looking for a tactical experience are going to be turned off. The players looking for competitive / pick-up play are going to be turned off by the freeform structure of the war scroll system. Since the rules are free, GW isn't going to generate new model sales from (a) players who already have a lot of legacy Fantasy models, (b) players who don't like the new model aesthetic. Anecdotally, based on what I've read on various forums, there appear to be few to no converts from other systems to AoS. It appears at least 30% of the old Fantasy Grognards have retreated back into the last vestiges of the old world, 30% are making a go with the new system and 30% are in the wait-and-see mode. The rest of the chatter seems to be from 40k guys trying AoS. I don't see this as being particularly helpful as all the activity around AoS seems to be from GW's existing customer base, and their existing customer base's fixed hobby budget resulting in cannibalizing sales from 40k to fuel AoS.
From a modelling perspective: The models require glue, and are quite a bit more complex than previous starter fare, making it appear aimed above the first time hobbyist. For the modelling only crowd: While the AoS box set provides excellent value in terms of price / model - on the whole, without a game to back it up, the stand alone models (outside the starter box) are competing directly against companies that directly serve the boutique modelling market. For example, the new Sigmarine Celestant on foot... he's the same price as Zhufor of the World Eaters and significantly more expensive than boutique models from guys like Kingdom Death or Knight Models. Certainly, GW's product fills a certain aesthetic niche, but their current pricing appears targeted at the mythical "price inelastic" fan as opposed to trying to grab wider appeal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: I will retract my comment about this, then -- though it's worth noting that when I click on your link, it says that the concept has drawn criticism from feminist writers.
Yes, but that's more of an issue with male writers forcing idealized tropes onto their female characters. e.g. manic pixie dream girl.
@keezus - keep in mind there are disenfranchised players of WM/H and other skirmishers too; they're just not as vocal as the disenfranchised 40k crowd (dare I say, less angry at the company?). For some of these people, AoS may be a good fit. As I've mentioned (and have seen firsthand) there are people totally new to miniature wargaming that seem interested in AoS. I think that's a great thing, and some of these folks might later play a game that I really like.
It grows the pie, and really we need more of that, than another game that steals players from other gaming systems, whether GW's or someone else's. Like, someone choosing between WMH and AoS is not a win for miniature gaming community as a whole; but someone who was plays Magic the Gathering who decides to pick up an AoS starter and goof around is -- just as a person who quit WMH because it wasn't for them, doesn't like Malifaux models, and so decides to go play video games might figure that Sigmar is a good fit.
I would disagree that AoS is tactically shallow. It doesn't have to be, but I think a lot of people who play it casually will play it as a tactically shallow game. But whatever -- they probably weren't going to be hypercompetitive WMH players anyhow, you know what I mean?
I totally agree that the people looking for competitive play or competitive pick-up play won't like the current structure, though that can be remedied by a comp system. However, I've actually seen a lot more pickup AoS games in a week than I've seen WHFB games of any kind in a year (I'm not actually sure I've seen more than one so the bar is not high...), so the pickup games do exist; they're just of people who are a lot more relaxed in their selecting their armies.
I think of the people who loved Fantasy Battle, only a small percentage will love Age of Sigmar, because they're wildly different (and in many ways antithetical) games.
From a gamepiece perspective, AoS is no more expensive than PP, whether you want to compare starter box (and maybe future campaign boxes?) with PP war boxes, or the price of loose models. I think it's close enough that it won't be the determining factor on the equivalent of a 35 or 50 point WMH army.
From modelling perspective, I think GW will do fine. Again, they're no more expensive than buying similar models from PP just to model. I don't think $10 ppm is extraordinary, but that's just me, and I get that's a stupid high price for some people; the character models are a bad judge of modelling success, because a lot of people just won't buy very many of them -- no different than people painting for fun who buy occasional PP models won't buy $30+ characters.
Regarding the whole Mary Sue thing, I openly admit to being totally clueless about what it meant at all
Talys wrote: @keezus - keep in mind there are disenfranchised players of WM/H and other skirmishers too; they're just not as vocal as the disenfranchised 40k crowd
In my experience the disenfranchised MH/H players started out as disenfranchised GW gamers.
@keezus: the price inelastic fan is not so mythical...
i am one of them...
price of a model has no bearing on my purchases, only aesthetic appeal, quality of the sculpting, and quality of the material and casting...
when i order a resin mini, it is a roll of the dice as to what kind of casting quality i am going to end up with on the first try...
when i order a plastic mini, i know exactly what i will get...
i don't think that the $8 difference between a KD mini and a GW mini is significantly more expensive...
given a choice of Kingdom Death, or a GW mini, GW gets my money every time, as KD doesn't appeal as much to me...
the few KD minis that do appeal sell out so quickly, that there is no guarantee that i can give Poots my money even if i want to...
looking at the hard plastic Pinups of Death set, there are only two models i want in that set, so it ends up being $50 for each mini i want, with 6 pieces that are unwanted, but i am still happy to buy the whole set to get the two hard plastic minis i want...
a similarly sized Studio McVey mini will cost me the same as a GW mini...
i know i will get a great resin cast from them, so at the end of the day, i will buy both the GW mini and the SM mini...
from experience, i know i will paint the GW mini, while the SM will gather dust, but look sexy in its little baggie...
given a choice between a Lord Celestant and Lord Zhufor, i would choose Zhufor because 40K appeals more...
given a choice between Zhufor and the $40 Lord Castellant, i would buy both, because the Castellant and Gryph Hound are amazing sculpts...
so, basically, price is the last thing i consider when buying a mini i want, and even then it is only a question of if i have enough money in my pocket to buy the mini or not...
if i don't want the mini to begin with, it doesn't matter how low the price is, because i'm not going to buy something i don't want...
Talys wrote: @keezus - keep in mind there are disenfranchised players of WM/H and other skirmishers too
I went to Infinity.
Talys wrote: I've mentioned (and have seen firsthand) there are people totally new to miniature wargaming that seem interested in AoS. I think that's a great thing, and some of these folks might later play a game that I really like. It grows the pie, and really we need more of that, than another game that steals players from other gaming systems, whether GW's or someone else's. Like, someone choosing between WMH and AoS is not a win for miniature gaming community as a whole; but someone who was plays Magic the Gathering who decides to pick up an AoS starter and goof around is -- just as a person who quit WMH because it wasn't for them, doesn't like Malifaux models, and so decides to go play video games might figure that Sigmar is a good fit.
Does "seem interested in" translate to hard sales? IMHO, I think that the free-form aspect of AoS is itself a barrier to entry from players coming from highly regimented environments such as Warmachine/Hordes or Magic the Gathering. Due to the structure of these games, the fact that the warscroll system doesn't set any limits around expected game size or composition - this is going to turn them off greatly - players from these systems aren't generally interested in forging the narrative, but rather prefer to match wits with their opponents. Limits need to be set before you see any crossover, because none of these guys are going to willingly walk into a gunfight when they only own a knife.
Talys wrote: I would disagree that AoS is tactically shallow. It doesn't have to be, but I think a lot of people who play it casually will play it as a tactically shallow game. But whatever -- they probably weren't going to be hypercompetitive WMH players anyhow, you know what I mean?
No. I don't understand what you mean. Even if the players are not competitive, the number of options available to the units is very limited. The random charge distances , random turn sequence also interferes with any sort of long term planning. There's no benefit to positioning, elevation, flanking or special objectives (without Sudden Death). Shooting is always possible and everything has 360 degree LOS area of engagement. You'll have to explain to me how the game is tactically deep in its current incarnation and is only played shallowly by casuals. I don't want to get into AoS "competitive" play, considering that the free-form warscroll system and the "measure from model" rules combines the worst of pay-to-win and model-for-advantage.
Talys wrote: From a gamepiece perspective, AoS is no more expensive than PP, whether you want to compare starter box (and maybe future campaign boxes?) with PP war boxes, or the price of loose models. I think it's close enough that it won't be the determining factor on the equivalent of a 35 or 50 point WMH army.
That's neither here nor there, as you've already assumed that "they" are going to buy it and have gone onto justification of GW's MSRP by price equivalency. My question is more-so who is intended to buy this product???
Talys wrote: From modelling perspective, I think GW will do fine. Again, they're no more expensive than buying similar models from PP just to model. I don't think $10 ppm is extraordinary, but that's just me, and I get that's a stupid high price for some people; the character models are a bad judge of modelling success, because a lot of people just won't buy very many of them -- no different than people painting for fun who buy occasional PP models won't buy $30+ characters.
Again, you conveniently ignore that there are cheaper options out there for pure modellers as long as they are not hung up on the GW/PP aesthetic. I find it less likely that a modeller is going to buy a unit box and build/paint the whole thing just as a display piece. They have no investment into the lore, and character models make better centerpieces. Spending $60 to build a single sigmarine doesn't make much sense. I suspect this is why the White Dwarf sold so well... mostly on the strength of hobbyists wanting to get their hands on a single sigmarrine to mess with. Things might be different in your experience but to me this is just common sense.
A lot of people are gamers who actually buy the models to play the game. They are not 100% convinced by the aesthetic, and at some price level will buy a cheaper alternative if the official supplier puts their price up too high.
This also applies to the rulebooks and codexes, which form an ecosystem with the models. If the price goes too high, people suddenly stop buying anything. There is no point having the new models if you don't have the new codex. There is no point having the latest codex if you don't have the new rules. Etc.
@Jah: Thanks for that post. I agree with your point that GW's prices are perfectly fine for the premeditated buyers (both hobby and gamers).
What are your thoughts on price points for impulse buys? I find that the thresholds for impulse buys (i.e. guys that you're 95% certain are going to hang out in their baggies and/or boxes in the closet) are set much lower vs definite buys - especially when a fixed budget is involved.
-edit- I think the AoS box set is well priced for the impulse buy - the rest of the stuff... not so much. But maybe GW is zeroing in on a one-and-done strategy.
@Killkrazy: sure, i'm a collector...
that doesn't make my voice invalid...
i also buy all the books, as well, as the fiction, art, and rules inform my painting, so that my customers can actually use the painted models they buy from me...
my business as a painter is entirely dependent on the attitudes of the buyers, and those who come to me are willing to pay top-dollar to get exactly what they want, in a way nobody else has done it before...
without research, i would not be able to do what i do, and without a passion for the setting, even less so...
the majority of my clients use my minis in their games...
a $250-and-up custom made special character like my Tycho, Draigo, and the like see a ton of table time in my clients' armies...
just because i am a collector doesn't mean that i am not invested in the lore, or interested in the rules...
i love the art and fiction of every setting i have collected models and books for, such as Confrontation, AT-43 (thanfully there were a few good non-prepainted minis made), Warhammer, 40K, Celtos, Dark-Age, Infinity, Warmachine, Hordes, and more...
@keezus - I've only played 3 games of Sigmar, and 2 of those games we were figuring out the rules and laughing at what we botched, so I'm hardly an expert. However, placing your units and moving advantageously is certainly of value (I don't know why you wouldn't think that it's not; if so, let me place and move YOUR units and let's see how you do ). It doesn't have to be a rush to the center, and I'd argue that against an experienced player that's a great way to lose every game.
There are many special rules (mountains of them), and the special abilities can be combined to create interesting tactical advantages; for instance, the new Lord Castellant that has a lantern that always deals a mortal wounds against chaos and D3 against chaos demons, without having to roll to hit. How you use and protect that model can make a real difference, as can protecting your chaos models in such a way that they aren't erased. In the same way as 40k, there will be (already are) killer combos that are just fantastically powerful or instant-win. The dynamic in this case is that GW's response is, "Sure, this is intentional. These players won't have anyone to play with."
You can love or hate that response; but only scanning through the warscrolls, I could imagine some pretty interesting ways to use some units in combination. It will likewise be important to bait your opponent into committing to forces and overextending their reach, such that you might lose a disproportionate number of units but are able to take out a key unit of theirs. Really, no different than other games in that respect, except that there is a crap ton of special rules (that I haven't and don't intend to read "cover to cover").
The game is tactically shallow to casuals, in my mind, because a lot of them will just play the models they want to buy, and they won't be optimizing any strategies based on special rules. This is how hypercasual MtG players play their games: they pick cards that are pretty, not build decks that are functional. About as functional as they get is, "I'll restrict myself to THREE land colors". I don't have a problem with things like random charge distance. I like that skilled players can lose to unskilled players, because in a tabletop game, you get a lot of lopsided matches (since there's no matchmaking). I do not like games with my buddies that are predetermined as a result of skill, as they would be in chess, where a skilled player will win 20 out of 20 games against an unskilled player.
In this sense, I guess, I'm one of these players that grate on some of the posters here, being in the camp of prioritizing "having a good time" than "winning because of skill".
Regarding sales - Yes, I have seen a few people actually BUY the game, who are not traditional wargame players. Maybe they'll give up on AoS after a week; who knows.
Of course limits have to be set. But on the pickup games I've observed of AoS locally, the discussion about armies takes a couple of minutes, and then they get down to having fun. The difficulty of establishing approximately competitive armies is exaggerated by the pro-points crowd.
Regarding prices - Of course there are cheaper options. And I'm happy for people who avail themselves of those. I really think that the price of models at $10 or whatever per model is a drop in the bucket for a hobby, if I'm going to spend any time at all on the model. I don't really want to go into the whole comparative thing again; but suffice it to say, building models from whatever company is a lot cheaper than most of the other things that I like to do -- whether it's going to the movies, or dinner out, or most video games, or whatever. It's not that I'm price inelastic (because at some point I'd say, nah, that costs too much); it's just at the prices they're at today, for the amount of time and enjoyment I spend on models, it's not really a big deal -- especially if I were to only buy the models that I actually intended to build and paint.
For modellers like myself, the aesthetic isn't the only important thing: the breadth of the collection is very important. I want to be able to keep going and build my interesting army, not run out of stuff to build and model. More than anything, this, and really enjoying Space Marines, are the two reasons GW is my top modelling vendor. And, I really, really prefer high impact polystyrene over resin or metal -- both for intricate small models, and especially for vehicles. As I've stated before, I have zero interest in historical, which is about the only place that you can find a variety of other plastic vehicles.
@Kilkrazy - Yeah, I would call myself a collector. But I actually do use MOST of the models (in the GW world, anyway) to play the game, at least a little. I mean, I don't just paint piles of terrain for nothin' And although there are models I paint just to collect, there are definitely models I paint because I want them to play with. For example, there is no way on earth I would paint 8 razorbacks or 8 drop pods, except that they are going to be interesting to field. And if I weren't playing them, I'd paint a LOT fewer basic bolter marines, lol.
I actually have far more rulebooks I've read and never used than GW models that I've painted that I've never used. I do have a lot of PP and other models that I buy and paint just to collect, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
keezus wrote: @Jah: Thanks for that post. I agree with your point that GW's prices are perfectly fine for the premeditated buyers (both hobby and gamers).
What are your thoughts on price points for impulse buys? I find that the thresholds for impulse buys (i.e. guys that you're 95% certain are going to hang out in their baggies and/or boxes in the closet) are set much lower vs definite buys - especially when a fixed budget is involved.
-edit- I think the AoS box set is well priced for the impulse buy - the rest of the stuff... not so much. But maybe GW is zeroing in on a one-and-done strategy.
I think that for people I see who wander the hobby shop just itching to buy something, $3 is a price point, and $50 is a price point for those impulse buys. I see a lot of people who buy stuff they don't need between those two prices, or picking between two boxes that are in those ranges.
@keezus: i don't know what a fixed budget feels like, because i have always had an aversion to money in my pocket...
i spend money as fast as i make it, but i have never had bills like a credit card, phone, car, or anything other than food and rent...
since i rarely have time to paint the minis i buy (but have plans for them all), i would say that pretty much everything i purchase is an impulse buy...
i can definitely see where a $10-$12 Infinity model (versus a $33-$40 GW mini) is way more of a no-brainer for most...
for me, i buy the Infinity guy in the hope that i will have some spare time one day to paint it up because it is an awesome sculpt, even knowing that it will bring in half of the return of a GW mini...
the GW mini i buy in the same hope, but it will get my spare time first, because i know it will bring in twice the return that the Infinity mini will...
meanwhile, my queue is too full to paint either one, because my work is always in high demand, and my schedule is booked months in advance...
i get why some people are upset over the rising prices, but pretty much every gamer i know (all around the world) has just as many, if not more, massive stacks of unpainted, unassembled minis as me, so it is not like i am a unique case...
Azreal13 wrote: So, if "the rest of us" aren't playing the game in a fluffy manner like you do, how else do you think we're playing?
I'm not saying "you are the only person in the world that plays this way" but right now, you are the person most actively advocating that playstyle and apparently endorsing GW's pursuit of this playstyle, therefore you represent that point of view. I represent the other point of view, so by "rest of us" I, I thought fairly obviously, am referring to those who share the view that things would be better as a game, rather than a dumbed down RPG.
I'm actually NOT advocating that for the game, and only minimally for the playstyle (lord, how many times can I say that I don't really like AoS that much as a game?). I'm stating that there is a percentage of people who quite enjoy it -- go look at the poll that was done here and on Warseer. I think it's important to:
1. Be respectful of people who do like it and not denigrate them as players
2. Recognize that there may be new players entering the wargame market who wouldn't play more complex games
3. Understand that there are people who like the models for what they are
I think it's fantastic that there's a game that fills this niche, as people that I would not have thought would be into miniatures are now looking at a miniature game. I am happy for them that there is something fun for these players; the alternative is being angry at Games Workshop for not making another game that would be for me. I have no energy or time to be angry about something that isn't targeted to me, and clearly, AoS is not targeted to steal players who are HAPPY with games with complex rules from those games. Keep in mind, too, that some of these people may then go on to try other games, and might like them -- thus growing the market.
Personally, I like the Sigmarite models more than anything about the game (and I will buy them), the fluff is a little interesting (I'll buy some, but not all of it), and the game is moderately fun, but not my thing to do regularly.
I enjoy games that has both heroic and nonheroic models on the same board and I like high model count games; I think AoS strips out the usefulness of everything nonheroic in an attempt to reduce model count and simplify the game.
For what it is worth, it is quite possible to separate Fluff (Background, World Building, History, Etc.) from Rules.
Most of the people in my Kings of War group are perfectly happy with using the Kings of War rules to represent battles in The Old World of Warhammer. (The exceptions do not object - they just don't care. The games could be taking place in the deserts of Barsoom as far as they are concerned.)
Me... I kind of want Mantic to expand on the world of Mantica more - so I would like to play in their background - but the Kings of War rules are admirably setting independent.
If I liked the Sigmarines more, I might feel differently about the game - I consider them to be background breaking - but then the world done went *BOOM!* and there just ain't much more background breaking than that.
I remember how well taking a similar approach to the Forgotten Realms did for Wizard of the Coast.... (Subtle hint: Wizards has admitted that that was one of the big mistakes that they made with 4th edition... turns out folks are attached to their fluff.)
GW could have avoided some of this backlash by looking at how other companies have done after similar Fluff breaking changes. (Old World of Darkness sold better than New World of Darkness, old Forgotten Realms sold better than the revised Forgotten Realms, etc..)
Incidentally - Age of Sigmarines is the politest term that my group uses to describe the new models.... Some of them have watched Red Dwarf and The Young Ones a few too many times....
The Auld Grump - those familiar with Lister no exactly what word I have been suppressing....
Azreal13 wrote: So, if "the rest of us" aren't playing the game in a fluffy manner like you do, how else do you think we're playing?
I'm not saying "you are the only person in the world that plays this way" but right now, you are the person most actively advocating that playstyle and apparently endorsing GW's pursuit of this playstyle, therefore you represent that point of view. I represent the other point of view, so by "rest of us" I, I thought fairly obviously, am referring to those who share the view that things would be better as a game, rather than a dumbed down RPG.
I'm actually NOT advocating that for the game, and only minimally for the playstyle (lord, how many times can I say that I don't really like AoS that much as a game?). I'm stating that there is a percentage of people who quite enjoy it -- go look at the poll that was done here and on Warseer. I think it's important to:
1. Be respectful of people who do like it and not denigrate them as players
2. Recognize that there may be new players entering the wargame market who wouldn't play more complex games
3. Understand that there are people who like the models for what they are
I think it's fantastic that there's a game that fills this niche, as people that I would not have thought would be into miniatures are now looking at a miniature game. I am happy for them that there is something fun for these players; the alternative is being angry at Games Workshop for not making another game that would be for me. I have no energy or time to be angry about something that isn't targeted to me, and clearly, AoS is not targeted to steal players who are HAPPY with games with complex rules from those games. Keep in mind, too, that some of these people may then go on to try other games, and might like them -- thus growing the market.
Personally, I like the Sigmarite models more than anything about the game (and I will buy them), the fluff is a little interesting (I'll buy some, but not all of it), and the game is moderately fun, but not my thing to do regularly.
I enjoy games that has both heroic and nonheroic models on the same board and I like high model count games; I think AoS strips out the usefulness of everything nonheroic in an attempt to reduce model count and simplify the game.
For what it is worth, it is quite possible to separate Fluff (Background, World Building, History, Etc.) from Rules.
Most of the people in my Kings of War group are perfectly happy with using the Kings of War rules to represent battles in The Old World of Warhammer. (The exceptions do not object - they just don't care. The games could be taking place in the deserts of Barsoom as far as they are concerned.)
Me... I kind of want Mantic to expand on the world of Mantica more - so I would like to play in their background - but the Kings of War rules are admirably setting independent.
If I liked the Sigmarines more, I might feel differently about the game - I consider them to be background breaking - but then the world done went *BOOM!* and there just ain't much more background breaking than that.
I remember how well taking a similar approach to the Forgotten Realms did for Wizard of the Coast.... (Subtle hint: Wizards has admitted that that was one of the big mistakes that they made with 4th edition... turns out folks are attached to their fluff.)
GW could have avoided some of this backlash by looking at how other companies have done after similar Fluff breaking changes. (Old World of Darkness sold better than New World of Darkness, old Forgotten Realms sold better than the revised Forgotten Realms, etc..)
Incidentally - Age of Sigmarines is the politest term that my group uses to describe the new models.... Some of them have watched Red Dwarf and The Young Ones a few too many times....
The Auld Grump - those familiar with Lister no exactly what word I have been suppressing....
@TheAuldGrump - I loved Red Dwarf. And the Forgotten Realms!
At some point, I will buy the Kings of War rulebook to read through it. Lots of people have such good things to say about it.
Since I don't like regimented fantasy combat, it won't be for me (I know this, 100%), but it will still be a cool read, and can join my huge list of game systems that I've enjoyed without playing.
Talys wrote: @TheAuldGrump - I loved Red Dwarf. And the Forgotten Realms!
At some point, I will buy the Kings of War rulebook to read through it. Lots of people have such good things to say about it.
Since I don't like regimented fantasy combat, it won't be for me (I know this, 100%), but it will still be a cool read, and can join my huge list of game systems that I've enjoyed without playing.
And that, I think, is likely the central bone of contention - there just are not that many games that cover regimental battles, with rank and file that are literally in ranks and files.
There are any number of games that cover the type of game that AoS is covering - and often with better rules.
And regiments are what people had built their armies around - putting work into making their units and armies into cohesive wholes.
When you have put that amount of work into building your armies... it does feel like a betrayal.
GWis going to lose a lot of those players to other games - Kings of War is an excellent example, because it allows folks to port their entire armies over - rank, file, fifes, drums, standards, and all.
And because they feel understandably betrayed... those sales are lost - these are people that are not going to be buying much from GW in the future.
One of the reasons why I feel that AoS might have been better off as a separate game, rather than as a replacement for Warhammer.
But it is also fair to say that the rules have been... substandard for at least two editions before they decided to blow up the world.
I left Warhammer for Kings of War well before the whole End Times nonsense, and I do not feel betrayed in that way.
But after the changes to the rules for eighth edition... I am a heck of a lot more likely to play Kings of War. Hell, I would rather play Mordheim than AoS, if I felt in the mood for a more skirmishy game.
To sum it up (spoilered because of Listerisms....):
"And because they feel understandably betrayed... those sales are lost - these are people that are not going to be buying much from GW in the future."
True, true. I'm so disgusted at GW axing WHFB and giving those gamers "the finger" on their way out the door with rules intended to keep them from playing the AoS version in public. It's really killed a lot of the interest I had in 40K as well. I already have plenty of GW miniatures - why risk buying any more since they've already shown themselves to be willing to flush one of their flagship gaming IP's?
TheAuldGrump wrote:For what it is worth, it is quite possible to separate Fluff (Background, World Building, History, Etc.) from Rules.
I've said it so often! Words to liv... er... game by. Great example too.
Incidentally - Age of Sigmarines is the politest term that my group uses to describe the new models.... Some of them have watched Red Dwarf and The Young Ones a few too many times....
The Auld Grump - those familiar with Lister no exactly what word I have been suppressing....
@TheAuldGrump: perfectly reasonable points, man...
it does seem that majority of people who got their fix from the regimental aspect of WFB are out of luck with AoS...
personally, i hope that GW has enough of a success with AoS that they see an increase in Fantasy sales for many years...
sadly, the prognosis is looking grim from at least half of the community:(...
@Killkrazy: just to clarify why i speak up about price and such, even though i am a collector, it's because i buy things like starter sets, box armies, and box sets even if i just want a single mini out of it...
i like to support the companies that make a product i enjoy...
for instance, i bought the Confrontation AoR box just for the books and LE mini, the old GW army boxes for the book and LE mini, the Rackham Hybrid and Nemesis boxes for the books and minis, and so on...
for AT-43, i just bought the books and the few metal minis, because i had no interest in the minis...
i bought the Cadwallon RPG books, even though i would only read them, and never play, just for the art and words...
same goes for the FFG40K books...
i could have bought the 7 or 8 minis i really wanted from the DV box seperately on eBay, but instead i pre-ordered it from the Frontline guys...
i could order the few guys i really want from AoS, or, for a few dollars more, i can get the whole box set from Frontline Gaming...
i do end up with a bunch of surplus minis and gaming aids, but i support two companies in the bargain, then paint a single mini from the box and double my money...
if i decide i will never use some of the minis, i can sell them on, so it's not like i'm just throwing money down a hole...
Or if you don't want to spend money but want a simple skirmish game you could try Shieldbreaker for free (18 pages rulebook with army building guides/lists and some illustrations all in one, it also has an online army builder).
Commissar Molotov wrote: "And because they feel understandably betrayed... those sales are lost - these are people that are not going to be buying much from GW in the future."
True, true. I'm so disgusted at GW axing WHFB and giving those gamers "the finger" on their way out the door with rules intended to keep them from playing the AoS version in public. It's really killed a lot of the interest I had in 40K as well. I already have plenty of GW miniatures - why risk buying any more since they've already shown themselves to be willing to flush one of their flagship gaming IP's?
They're getting rid of a game that isn't selling well for them, and replacing it with another game that uses a lot of the models. I'm not sure why the outrage over that part of it.
If 40k weren't selling well, I'd imagine they'd make massive changes too. But that isn't the case. If anything, they're making Fantasy more like 40k -- trying to leverage many of the things that made 40k successful -- and fusing it with the elements that they think make other game systems attractive (ie simpler rules, fewer models).
Some people will think they're taking the worst of 40k and the worst of Fantasy Battle and making into a game destined for failure. Other people will think they're taking the best of 40k, and the best of Fantasy Battle. And both groups are right, because it's just a matter of opinion.
To me, the success of AoS could have been sought in one of two ways by GW: to find "community approval" as the most beloved of its genre, and basically taking players from other games; or, by finding and serving a currently underserved niche. GW has obviously chosen the latter, for better or worse. The reason you don't see an avalanche of community approval is pretty simple: it's not looking for targeted to the people who are happy with their existing games.
Talys wrote: ......by finding and serving a currently underserved niche. GW has obviously chosen the latter, for better or worse.
It could have been done so much better its genuinely tragic.
I would have definitely done things differently (and tried a lot harder to create appeal for the existing playerbase). But what do I know... I thought Facebook was a crazy idea and can't imagine why people post pictures of their dinner for their friends to see
Azreal13 wrote:If, at this point in time, a niche is currently underserved, it probably isn't a rich enough vein to be worth the biggest fish in the pond digging.
To me, Az, that is the quintessential question. If you ask me, people like my wife and the couple of gals that occasionally play magic with het who will all probably play AoS a little aren't going to spend enough to make things interesting fir GW. it isn't even a question of how much models or books cost; they go to the hobby shop like 3 times a year and mostly buy Magic stuff and goodies fir their significant others.
But I have been totally wring predicting such smashing successes as 3D movies, Facebook, and giant screen smartphones.
TheAuldGrump wrote:
Talys wrote: @TheAuldGrump - I loved Red Dwarf. And the Forgotten Realms!
At some point, I will buy the Kings of War rulebook to read through it. Lots of people have such good things to say about it.
Since I don't like regimented fantasy combat, it won't be for me (I know this, 100%), but it will still be a cool read, and can join my huge list of game systems that I've enjoyed without playing.
And that, I think, is likely the central bone of contention - there just are not that many games that cover regimental battles, with rank and file that are literally in ranks and files.
There are any number of games that cover the type of game that AoS is covering - and often with better rules.
And regiments are what people had built their armies around - putting work into making their units and armies into cohesive wholes.
When you have put that amount of work into building your armies... it does feel like a betrayal.
GWis going to lose a lot of those players to other games - Kings of War is an excellent example, because it allows folks to port their entire armies over - rank, file, fifes, drums, standards, and all.
And because they feel understandably betrayed... those sales are lost - these are people that are not going to be buying much from GW in the future.
One of the reasons why I feel that AoS might have been better off as a separate game, rather than as a replacement for Warhammer.
But it is also fair to say that the rules have been... substandard for at least two editions before they decided to blow up the world.
I left Warhammer for Kings of War well before the whole End Times nonsense, and I do not feel betrayed in that way.
But after the changes to the rules for eighth edition... I am a heck of a lot more likely to play Kings of War. Hell, I would rather play Mordheim than AoS, if I felt in the mood for a more skirmishy game.
To sum it up (spoilered because of Listerisms....):
Spoiler:
The Auld Grump
Yes, I have one acquaintance in that category, though he's more sad than angry, I think. His FB army was 'complete' and so for 4+ years he hasn't really bought anything meaningful, and him and his group still ply 6e, I think. So if there had been a 9e rulebook that was super awesome, he might have bought rules, bit he really has no interest in building another army.
Neither here nor there, but we did get into a conversation about what could get him back into new miniatures, and he simply didn't know. He's just quite content playing 6e, and spends almost all his hobby time building terrain.
They're getting rid of a game that isn't selling well for them, and replacing it with another game that uses a lot of the models. I'm not sure why the outrage over that part of it.
They got rid of a well loved game that wasn't selling well due to mismanagement, and replaced it with a shallow facsimilie that addressed none of the reasons causing the poor sales. They could have done so many things to boost fantasy sales, like active support as shown by the End Times boom.
Some people will think they're taking the worst of 40k and the worst of Fantasy Battle and making into a game destined for failure. Other people will think they're taking the best of 40k, and the best of Fantasy Battle. And both groups are right, because it's just a matter of opinion.
Whether or not you agree that it's the best or worst of 40k, it's made the games so similar there's no real reason to play both.
To me, the success of AoS could have been sought in one of two ways by GW: to find "community approval" as the most beloved of its genre, and basically taking players from other games; or, by finding and serving a currently underserved niche. GW has obviously chosen the latter, for better or worse. The reason you don't see an avalanche of community approval is pretty simple: it's not looking for targeted to the people who are happy with their existing games.
But AoS isn't an underserved niche, it's pretty well served already, by dozens of generic high fantasy skirmish games that do it better. Also targetting people other than those that already like your game and want to give you money is the most fething stupid business plan I've ever heard.
I still can't fathom why they didn't introduce AoS as a 4th game or a WHFB lite. That way everyone is happy and money gets spent. An awful lot of the upset seems to be down to WHFB going away, rather than AoS being crap.
Azreal13 wrote:If, at this point in time, a niche is currently underserved, it probably isn't a rich enough vein to be worth the biggest fish in the pond digging.
To me, Az, that is the quintessential question. If you ask me, people like my wife and the couple of gals that occasionally play magic with het who will all probably play AoS a little aren't going to spend enough to make things interesting fir GW. it isn't even a question of how much models or books cost; they go to the hobby shop like 3 times a year and mostly buy Magic stuff and goodies fir their significant others.
But I have been totally wring predicting such smashing successes as 3D movies, Facebook, and giant screen smartphones.
Jokes aside, that's what I guess the future for this game will be. Like other light and goofy games with shallow rules, people will buy it, play it a few times and then quietly lose interest. The competitive players who would have carried over from 8th have been largely alienated, so AoS needs a big draw of new players who like the "forced casual" ethos. But with GW publicity being what it is and the internet buzz being largely people rolling their eyes at the beard rules, I can't see many new players being drawn in.
The original rules for the LOTR strategy game served the fantasy skirmish niche better than AoS does and ever will.
Easy army composition without totally throwing away balance (only restriction was a 33% limit on bow-armed models), simple base rules without sacrificing tactical options, etc.
That was a great game. If GW wanted a skirmish system which could also go up to large battles then they should've just ported their fantasy stuff over to that rather than make a new game which is worse in every regard, in my opinion.
There is a lot of talk about how badly GW management is and how they don't know what they are doing, but I can't really think of any other game companies that have been in business longer than GW. There are a handful, but of them, most have been bought out/up and became a division of a larger company with broader scope than just games. GW must be doing something right to have had the longevity they have enjoyed. Perhaps this is the end of their run, but I hope not. I want them to keep going. Will I play AoS? Probably not, but it does not mean I wish for it to fail, or I won't play because it is bad, I am just not into the fantasy theme.
There are some aspects about it that I like over 40k. I like the simplified rule book. I like the idea of "warscrolls" containing all the rules needed for certain models and how those can have rules interaction with each other. I think having a system like that is a lot more flexible over time and can let the game designers do different things, correct balance on the fly more easily, introduct new rules for minis or factions. Being locked into something like the BrB and Codex makes changes hard and shifts in the game much larger in scale. The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic. It lets the player grow their army in smaller bites. Don't like "goblins" as part of your army (does AoS even have Goblins?) great you are probably only out $30-$40, try something else. In 40K to figure out you don't like Tau, you are probably invested for $350 or so before you have enough stuff to figure it out, and by then it is too late.
Loborocket wrote: The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic.
There needs to be limits though. Wizards of the Coast realized pretty early on that if you allow unrestricted free-form deck building, you're going to have a situation where decks get built with 15 mountains and 45 lightning bolts.
Loborocket wrote: The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic.
There needs to be limits though. Wizards of the Coast realized pretty early on that if you allow unrestricted free-form deck building, you're going to have a situation where decks get built with 15 mountains and 45 lightning bolts.
I don't disagree with that. I just like that change in thinking. Making the game more "modular". Not having limits around it does seem weird though. Perhaps there is some more grand vision not yet revealed around that?
Azreal13 wrote: I think that grand vision may be "do what Warmachine does!"
Don't know Warmachine, not sure what that means, but it sounds like a sarcastic/negative dig at GW. Sometimes emulating the competition is not a bad thing. No need to re-invent the wheel.
Azreal13 wrote: I think that grand vision may be "do what Warmachine does!"
Don't know Warmachine, not sure what that means, but it sounds like a sarcastic/negative dig at GW. Sometimes emulating the competition is not a bad thing. No need to re-invent the wheel.
It is. GW copying PP is similar to a Chimpanzee reading a newspaper. It can copy the movements. It can even convince some it is reading the paper, but in the end the chimp doesn't understand the words on the page. And neither does GW.
It is. GW copying PP is similar to a Chimpanzee reading a newspaper. It can copy the movements. It can even convince some it is reading the paper, but in the end the chimp doesn't understand the words on the page. And neither does GW.
Time will tell I guess.
Ancetdotally, I see a lot more GW games being played in my local stores than I see Warmachine. So copying or not, knowing what they are doing or not, GW is having more success at getting games played in stores around me.
Azreal13 wrote: I think that grand vision may be "do what Warmachine does!"
Don't know Warmachine, not sure what that means, but it sounds like a sarcastic/negative dig at GW. Sometimes emulating the competition is not a bad thing. No need to re-invent the wheel.
It is. GW copying PP is similar to a Chimpanzee reading a newspaper. It can copy the movements. It can even convince some it is reading the paper, but in the end the chimp doesn't understand the words on the page. And neither does GW.
Azreal13 wrote: I think that grand vision may be "do what Warmachine does!"
Don't know Warmachine, not sure what that means, but it sounds like a sarcastic/negative dig at GW. Sometimes emulating the competition is not a bad thing. No need to re-invent the wheel.
It's not a dig. You talk about ccg like war scrolls that have all a units stats and special rules? Privateer press have been doing that for over ten years - every unit has a card with all their stars and special rules on it. No flicking through twenty or thirty pages of three different codices. Card. Hence 'doing what warmachine does'.
Then again, all companies feed off of each other. Infinity n3 has a lot of nods towards warmachine, im sure new games and new editions of games will likewise have similar features and traits to current games and design philosophies.
Loborocket wrote: There is a lot of talk about how badly GW management is and how they don't know what they are doing, but I can't really think of any other game companies that have been in business longer than GW. There are a handful, but of them, most have been bought out/up and became a division of a larger company with broader scope than just games. GW must be doing something right to have had the longevity they have enjoyed.
I think it's mostly inertia. They produced some innovative stuff in the 80's, and muscled out all of the competition and have been riding on that for a while.
It's a fallacy to think that being big or being around for a long time means they're doing anything right; it just means they've gotten away with it until now. The more I know about big companies the more I'm convinced that none of them have the faintest idea about what they are doing.
Loborocket wrote: The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic.
There needs to be limits though. Wizards of the Coast realized pretty early on that if you allow unrestricted free-form deck building, you're going to have a situation where decks get built with 15 mountains and 45 lightning bolts.
This was actually a cool deck. Add a few fireballs. Plague rats, too! They were nice, cheap, stupid decks for the everyday player. When MtG launched, it was ubercasual, the instructions were very simple (now look at the volume of errata, lol), and there were a bazillion cheap ways to make the game unplayable. Even some great, "I go, you die, ha ha!" combos with a good draw.
It actually took quite a while before there were such restrictions, officially
Didn't prevent us from going crazy buying truckloads of boosters, lol.
Loborocket wrote: The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic.
There needs to be limits though. Wizards of the Coast realized pretty early on that if you allow unrestricted free-form deck building, you're going to have a situation where decks get built with 15 mountains and 45 lightning bolts.
This was actually a cool deck. Add a few fireballs. Plague rats, too! They were nice, cheap, stupid decks for the everyday player. When MtG launched, it was ubercasual, the instructions were very simple (now look at the volume of errata, lol), and there were a bazillion cheap ways to make the game unplayable. Even some great, "I go, you die, ha ha!" combos with a good draw.
It actually took quite a while before there were such restrictions, officially
Didn't prevent us from going crazy buying truckloads of boosters, lol.
From the early days I seem to remember 60 card minimum deck size and 4 of the same limit in any deck (excluding land of course). That was it. Of course I did not play at the VERY beginning and they also had the common, rare, very rare blind distribution that did a lot to control "power builds". Of course my friend had card way before me so he had everythign he needed and I had nothing. That was part of what made me buy more. It was like the next pack would give me just what I wanted to beat him. Never seemed to work though so I got off that hampster wheel.
Herzlos wrote: I think it's mostly inertia. They produced some innovative stuff in the 80's, and muscled out all of the competition and have been riding on that for a while.
It's a fallacy to think that being big or being around for a long time means they're doing anything right; it just means they've gotten away with it until now. The more I know about big companies the more I'm convinced that none of them have the faintest idea about what they are doing.
Being a guy who works with a lot of big companies, I can assure you that they seem like they often seem like don't know what they're doing, but they're often very good at doing one thing WAY better than small companies: making money. A lot of small companies are NOT focused enough on the bottom line, are well-loved, but disappear.
On the other hand, Games Workshop is at most a small big company, with most of its direct competitors tiny companies. In many ways, it operates more like a medium-sized business (which is not a bad thing).
What big companies typically lack is agility to respond quickly to market demands. What they usually excel at is distribution, efficiencies of scale, and breadth and depth of product. They are typically also more durable: when they run into trouble, they have more ways to get out of trouble than a small company (because they can raise/borrow money more easily).
A lot of people that work for large companies think they do really stupid things and that their executives are massively overpaid. Perhaps this is so, yet those same companies often make way more money than their employees can conceptualize, and keep employed thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people. A lot of average folks commonly say that they don't like large companies for various reasons, but in fact spend a majority of their income, in some way, with such companies. You can't avoid it -- pharaceuticals, food, industrial products, fuel, electricity, housing materials, toiletries, etc.
What it comes down to at the end of the day for large companies is that advantages that they have outweigh the common objections to these companies that most people perceive.
Mostly, I'm not speaking about Games Workshop, by the way: just large companies in general.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Loborocket wrote: From the early days I seem to remember 60 card minimum deck size and 4 of the same limit in any deck (excluding land of course). That was it. Of course I did not play at the VERY beginning and they also had the common, rare, very rare blind distribution that did a lot to control "power builds". Of course my friend had card way before me so he had everythign he needed and I had nothing. That was part of what made me buy more. It was like the next pack would give me just what I wanted to beat him. Never seemed to work though so I got off that hampster wheel.
The minimum number of cards in the original game release was 40. There were literally no other restrictions. It also had the cool rule that if a card contradicted the printed rules the text of the printed card took precedence... so faq you faq!!! hahaha.
I actually love the simplicity of the original rules
By the way, IIRC, the first card restrictions came out in their tournament format in 1994, with the game launching in 1993. That was also when they first banned cards, including artifact mana like Black Lotus, Mox stones, and Sol Ring (because reliably getting a djinn out on turn 1 and then cloning it with a doppleganger on turn 2 was obscene) -- and the "I win without you playing" cards like Time Walk/Ancestral Recall combos. Could be off on the dates by a year or so, though.
Loborocket wrote: The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic.
There needs to be limits though. Wizards of the Coast realized pretty early on that if you allow unrestricted free-form deck building, you're going to have a situation where decks get built with 15 mountains and 45 lightning bolts.
This was actually a cool deck. Add a few fireballs.
No. Fireballs reduces the potency of the deck significantly. You only need 7 lightning bolts to win. You get 3 draws, 10 cards - at 1/4 lands statistics suggest 2-3 of the 10 will be lands and the player will draw the 7th lightning bolt on turn 4.
T1 - land, bolt
T2 - land, bolt, bolt
T3 - land (if applicable), bolt, bolt, (bolt, if applicable)
T4 - bolt, (bolt if necessary)
MTG went from the path of "too free form" to a "formalized" format. Age of Sigmar is doing the opposite by throwing away the structure of WHFB and replacing it with "anything goes".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: I actually love the simplicity of the original rules
keezus wrote: No. Fireballs reduces the potency of the deck significantly. You only need 7 lightning bolts to win. You get 3 draws, 10 cards - at 1/4 lands statistics suggest 2-3 of the 10 will be lands and the player will draw the 7th lightning bolt on turn 4.
T1 - land, bolt
T2 - land, bolt, bolt
T3 - land (if applicable), bolt, bolt, (bolt, if applicable)
T4 - bolt, (bolt if necessary)
This assumes you're using traditional land. If you're using 100% artifact mana, you'll drop all your lands in turn 1 and empty the lightning bolts out of your hand.
keezus wrote: MTG went from the path of "too free form" to a "formalized" format. Age of Sigmar is doing the opposite by throwing away the structure of WHFB and replacing it with "anything goes".
Instead of imagining Age of Sigmar as Warhammer Fantasy 9.0, think of it as Age of Sigmar 1.0. It's a whole new game -- I think it's so unrecognizable from WHFB in every respect that WHFB is just an inspirational predecessor product.
The only thing that's carried over, really, are models. And even so, it's probably just during a transition period that a lot of old models stick around; putting aside End Times models, which were no doubt designed with AoS in mind, in a few years, a lot of those kits will probably be quite different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: Can we take MTG tactics to another thread or bring it back to the discussion somehow?
Sure thing I think we got carried away with nostalgia!
Though I would like to point out that as a parallel to AoS, version 1.0 being very free-form is a similarity between them (but only if you see AoS as a brand new game).
Now that I really think about it, I think Games Workshop has really screwed the pooch on the AoS ruleset. If they are going to add balance through future releases, they need to state this RIGHT AWAY. Companies don't have the luxury of time like they used to. In MTG, it took a little while for the degenerate decks to arise, but now with the internet, and those predisposed to creating degenerate lists/tatics working together... this process is going to occur in the first three months and has the potential to heavily skew gameplay (and alienate customers) between now and whatever miracle update GW has in the works.
I was looking at the AoS models on GW's site and noticed they changed the names of many races and thought maybe it was due to IP reasons, so they can copyright/trademark more.
Thing is, there are other companies using the name Aelf already, 2 that come to mind are Mierce Miniatures and Red Box Games (although RBG extends it as Aelfar).
I thought they had changed the names for legal reasons?
keezus wrote: Now that I really think about it, I think Games Workshop has really screwed the pooch on the AoS ruleset. If they are going to add balance through future releases, they need to state this RIGHT AWAY. Companies don't have the luxury of time like they used to. In MTG, it took a little while for the degenerate decks to arise, but now with the internet, and those predisposed to creating degenerate lists/tatics working together... this process is going to occur in the first three months and has the potential to heavily skew gameplay (and alienate customers) between now and whatever miracle update GW has in the works.
The Internet is truly the reason that exploitable lists are so common, sadly. Mind you, in MtG, we were building many of the high exploit decks within.... weeks of the game's release.
The theory in having fun is not terribly different, though. If you're playing someone uncompetitive, you need to use a more uncompetitive "list" in order to keep the two sides at approximate parity, and regulating that is up to the players.
That's actually STILL the way it is today, if you're playing with people who have no desire to build a competitive deck or miniature army, and just want to "play what they want to play". I know a few people like that, and they're pretty fun to play 40k with; I imagine they'd be quite a bit of fun to play Age of Sigmar with, even though they'll never build a "winning list" -- they'll just field the models they bought because they thought they'd look good together, without any regard for the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: What disappoints me about Age of Sigmar is how much WH/40K there still is in it.
Yeah, there are strange 40k carry-overs (like charge), which don't *bother* me, but puzzle me as to why they'd bring it into a brand new game.
Talys wrote: [Instead of imagining Age of Sigmar as Warhammer Fantasy 9.0, think of it as Age of Sigmar 1.0. It's a whole new game -- I think it's so unrecognizable from WHFB in every respect that WHFB is just an inspirational predecessor product.
The only thing that's carried over, really, are models. And even so, it's probably just during a transition period that a lot of old models stick around; putting aside End Times models, which were no doubt designed with AoS in mind, in a few years, a lot of those kits will probably be quite different.
I have a problem with this argument, in that while AoS may be in its first edition - and if it survives, we'll see AoS 2nd Ed in 4-5 years. It's coming from a company with 30+ years of experience and a combined 15 editions from its two flagship games. So it's tough to say that we should be looking at AoS as something akin to Rogue Trader or WHFB 1st Ed, especially when AoS is so heavily influenced by GW's current rules.
Sigvatr wrote: Release a nigh-perfectly balanced ruleset that incorporates competitive player feedback to give everyone the best ruleset you could imagine?
That's pretty much the opposite of what GW wants.
I'm no GW apologist, but Sportsmachine's hypercompetitive scene and repetitive format is hardly a paragon of the perfect game environment, so, no, I don't think you really need to pose it as "PP good; GW baad".
Sigvatr wrote: Release a nigh-perfectly balanced ruleset that incorporates competitive player feedback to give everyone the best ruleset you could imagine?
That's pretty much the opposite of what GW wants.
I'm no GW apologist, but Sportsmachine's hypercompetitive scene and repetitive format is hardly a paragon of the perfect game environment, so, no, I don't think you really need to pose it as "PP good; GW baad".
(edit, double-post problems)
Try reading No Quater. It's what WD used to be. Its full of hobby articles such as conversions, making scenery and narrative based missions. If its repetitive then you're just not trying hard enough.
PP. Good rules design. Good communication with players. Good support for tournaments.
GW. Bad rules design. Horrible communication with players. No support for tournaments.
So, yes. PP good. GW bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Nobody was saying you have to like it, but the similarities between the implementation of AoS and how PP approach their games are quite striking.
infinite_array wrote: I have a problem with this argument, in that while AoS may be in its first edition - and if it survives, we'll see AoS 2nd Ed in 4-5 years. It's coming from a company with 30+ years of experience and a combined 15 editions from its two flagship games. So it's tough to say that we should be looking at AoS as something akin to Rogue Trader or WHFB 1st Ed, especially when AoS is so heavily influenced by GW's current rules.
I doubt it will be 4-5 years before 2e People complain, after all, that GW's rules are invalidated in less than 2 years, forcing to buy new models, new books, and all that.
Someone posted an article written in like... the 90s where one of the principle game designers (I forget who) was arguing that points are an unnecessary part of (and a burden to) successful wargaming, and in many way, Age of Sigmar seeks to accomplish that vision. Whether it's successful or not depends on whether there's a large enough demographic that would prefer a point-free game where armies are agreed on cooperatively pre-game, rather than arrived at using a point system remains to be seen.
More than anything else, I think this is the biggest issue that people who don't like AoS have with the game (and in fairness, a feature that some who like AoS really like about it). Some of us (including me) are skeptical to varying degrees about whether there exist enough people like this exist to make AoS The Next Big Thing. However, we all tend to look at products through the lens of what we want to see in a product, rather than what other people might want to see in it.
As an example, I can't imagine that the entire North American miniature/collectible industry is only worth $125 million a year (a rounding error in the next Marvel movie), while Hello Kitty sales figures globally are estimated at something like $5 billion annually. How can a dumb white cat with a pink bow tie generate THAT much money?!
Then again, the wife of my best friend has spent more money on Hello Kitty stuff than I have on 40k. So, go figure.
I think the PP arms-race type meta is pretty taxing and can drive players away from the system. Its what burnt me out of WM/H. The local meta shifted towards tournament prep which meant that you were facing Tier-1 net lists day in and day out. While its possible to step up and bring the thunder yourself, I found it not very fun as stress at work had gone through the roof and I was looking for a less stressful gaming experience.
MWHistorian wrote: Try reading No Quater. It's what WD used to be. Its full of hobby articles such as conversions, making scenery and narrative based missions. If its repetitive then you're just not trying hard enough. PP. Good rules design. Good communication with players. Good support for tournaments. GW. Bad rules design. Horrible communication with players. No support for tournaments.
I'm actually not a big fan of No Quarter. I buy the occasional issue if there are features of models I like, but the amount of model photography is quite small, even compared to old monthly WDs. I *really* miss the old monthly WDs... WAY better than the current weekly format. The ONLY thing good about the weekly format is that it's synced with their product releases, and probably a majority of people don't care about this because they don't go to the hobby store *every week*, unless they game there.
I think that you summed up why I don't mind GW as a company, by the way. We disagree on whether the rules are good/bad -- because I find 40k lots of fun, and even AoS reasonably fun, while WMH was just "ok" (whether or not the rules are technically excellent) -- but I simply don't care about player communication and support for tournaments. If I cared about these things, I'm sure I would prefer PP as a company.
It comes down for me...
GW: Fun game. Lots of nice models. Tons of new stuff all the time. Big vehicles & scenery kits! PP: Ok-ish game. Moderate number of nice models. Trickle of new stuff. Very few vehicles, use other scenery.
OTOH, I am happy both companies exist. I wouldn't want either to disappear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
keezus wrote: I think the PP arms-race type meta is pretty taxing and can drive players away from the system. Its what burnt me out of WM/H. The local meta shifted towards tournament prep which meant that you were facing Tier-1 net lists day in and day out. While its possible to step up and bring the thunder yourself, I found it not very fun as stress at work had gone through the roof and I was looking for a less stressful gaming experience.
It's just the same thing that 40k went through.
At the end of the day, PP has to make money, and that means either selling you more WMH stuff, getting more players (and this gets increasingly hard to do with time), or coming out with something brand new (which isn't that easy to do). Of course, there's always the old fall-back... if your group is happy with what they have, they should stick with it instead of moving with the game. If you hunted around, you'd probably find a WMH gaming group that didn't move "forward" as quickly -- I know a few in my area that have done that, for exactly the reasons you've described
Someone posted an article written in like... the 90s where one of the principle game designers (I forget who) was arguing that points are an unnecessary part of (and a burden to) successful wargaming, and in many way, Age of Sigmar seeks to accomplish that vision. Whether it's successful or not depends on whether there's a large enough demographic that would prefer a point-free game where armies are agreed on cooperatively pre-game, rather than arrived at using a point system remains to be seen.
Any chance of posting a link or just sharing a transcript? I'd like to see that.
As a comparable example to AoS, Black Powder was originally released with the same intention - no points value (actually a very, very rough points value), with the idea that players would either use historical scenarios to create games or make their own.
Warlord very quickly turned around on this position, and their further releases - army lists for BP, and points values and army lists for Pike & Shotte, Hail Caesar, and Bolt Action - might be an indication that while the omission of points values might work for smaller, niche games, it's more difficult for games that look to appeal to a larger margain of players to deny these parts of the game to their players.
And I think we can agree that GW has a very large population of players that they'd like to appeal to.
Azreal13 wrote: Nobody was saying you have to like it, but the similarities between the implementation of AoS and how PP approach their games are quite striking.
Outside of the use of cards, I'm not seeing it.
Switching to round bases. CCG like unit "combos." Free (or mostly free) access to the rules. Scenario orientated victory conditions/objectives. Smaller starting game size. I'm sure rules compendiums that are an optional purchase but useful reference are in our near future too.
I'm not saying they're doing it exactly the same (and I'm not saying they're doing it well!) but it feels to me like someone has looked at how Warmachine has grown and Fantasy hasn't and decided to ape it.
Just, as already mentioned, they've tried to copy it without really understanding it.
mechanicalhorizon wrote: I was looking at the AoS models on GW's site and noticed they changed the names of many races and thought maybe it was due to IP reasons, so they can copyright/trademark more.
Thing is, there are other companies using the name Aelf already, 2 that come to mind are Mierce Miniatures and Red Box Games (although RBG extends it as Aelfar).
I thought they had changed the names for legal reasons?
I forsee a big deal coming about this, If Mierce Miniatures decides to do to GW what GW likes to do to everyone else, then GW may, in fact, have to eat humble pie and change the name *again*
Try reading No Quater. It's what WD used to be. Its full of hobby articles such as conversions, making scenery and narrative based missions. If its repetitive then you're just not trying hard enough.
PP. Good rules design. Good communication with players. Good support for tournaments.
GW. Bad rules design. Horrible communication with players. No support for tournaments.
So, yes. PP good. GW bad.
I'm really tired of the mentality that somehow if one doesn't enjoy PP it's because they don't know enough or like GW too much. I read no quarter until I felt it was no longer worth it to keep involved. While that stuff exists, I've never seen it in action.
Yes, PP has solid rules and tournaments. But, I hate their smug attitude and aggressive moderation, and find GW's poor communication less offensive than PP's unpleasant style. I also find almost no one ever plays anything but basic caster kill, and generally don't like the player attitude they've fostered.
GW isn't great, but PP is far from perfect. There be many other companies about that I like far better than either of the current big fish.
Someone posted an article written in like... the 90s where one of the principle game designers (I forget who) was arguing that points are an unnecessary part of (and a burden to) successful wargaming, and in many way, Age of Sigmar seeks to accomplish that vision. Whether it's successful or not depends on whether there's a large enough demographic that would prefer a point-free game where armies are agreed on cooperatively pre-game, rather than arrived at using a point system remains to be seen.
Any chance of posting a link or just sharing a transcript? I'd like to see that.
As a comparable example to AoS, Black Powder was originally released with the same intention - no points value (actually a very, very rough points value), with the idea that players would either use historical scenarios to create games or make their own.
Warlord very quickly turned around on this position, and their further releases - army lists for BP, and points values and army lists for Pike & Shotte, Hail Caesar, and Bolt Action - might be an indication that while the omission of points values might work for smaller, niche games, it's more difficult for games that look to appeal to a larger margain of players to deny these parts of the game to their players.
And I think we can agree that GW has a very large population of players that they'd like to appeal to.
I'm sorry -- it was linked in that 300-page N&R thread, I think, in the 100's. I have no idea how to find it, unfortunately.
Try reading No Quater. It's what WD used to be. Its full of hobby articles such as conversions, making scenery and narrative based missions. If its repetitive then you're just not trying hard enough.
PP. Good rules design. Good communication with players. Good support for tournaments.
GW. Bad rules design. Horrible communication with players. No support for tournaments.
So, yes. PP good. GW bad.
I'm really tired of the mentality that somehow if one doesn't enjoy PP it's because they don't know enough or like GW too much. I read no quarter until I felt it was no longer worth it to keep involved. While that stuff exists, I've never seen it in action.
Yes, PP has solid rules and tournaments. But, I hate their smug attitude and aggressive moderation, and find GW's poor communication less offensive than PP's unpleasant style. I also find almost no one ever plays anything but basic caster kill, and generally don't like the player attitude they've fostered.
GW isn't great, but PP is far from perfect. There be many other companies about that I like far better than either of the current big fish.
Sounds more like a problem with your local meta.
I've never found PP to be anything but pleasant. On the forums PP staff and creators often talk about and explain changes or additions as well as rules and fluff.
Edit. And No Quarter has all the things you asked for. If your local meta doesn't use them, then that's their problem.
Switching to round bases. CCG like unit "combos." Free (or mostly free) access to the rules. Scenario orientated victory conditions/objectives. Smaller starting game size. I'm sure rules compendiums that are an optional purchase but useful reference are in our near future too.
I'm not saying they're doing it exactly the same (and I'm not saying they're doing it well!) but it feels to me like someone has looked at how Warmachine has grown and Fantasy hasn't and decided to ape it.
Just, as already mentioned, they've tried to copy it without really understanding it.
"Switching to round bases" - like their other game already has...not sure how that is aping PP "CCG like unit "combos" - You mean units boosting other units in some way shape or form to make them more effective? Yeah, GW hasn't been doing that for years (even without psychic powers) in 40k and to a lesser extent fantasy "Free (or mostly free) access to the rules" - Show me where PP's rules are completely free? Or all their unit entries are free? Sounds like GW is actually taking more of a page from CMoN than PP if they are copying anyone. "Scenario oriented victory conditions" - Something that already exists in the games the company has produced. "Smaller starting game size" - How is this a PP thing? GW did "true skirmish" way back and then went to mass battle. GW didn't invent it but don't act like PP did.
I don't think GW is copying PP. I think the things you claim are copying are things they've pretty much done off an on over the 30+ years they've been producing games (outside of free rules, that one is completely new). Again, not that they invented it just that it's been something they've been doing for a while. And that they just designed a system they best feel will sell models and make it easy to make purchases.
Personally I just can't get into Warmachine/Hordes. Part of it is the local scene. Part of it is the models (looks and materials). And part of it is I just don't have the time to play a game that changes that often at a competitive level (and I'd want to be competitive if I play WM/H). Rules are good from what I hear and people enjoy it but it's not for me. Granted not all GW games are for me either as I just didn't play 8th Fantasy but do play 40k fairly regularly and like the look of AoS. Trick is finding games that I can play locally with others without buying and painting 2-3 armies myself
MWHistorian wrote: And No Quarter has all the things you asked for. If your local meta doesn't use them, then that's their problem.
I... didn't ask for anything. And I've played in three metas in two states, all of which have had some problem of exclusivity or bad attitudes, such as assuming girls don't know what games are and one lovely veteran player refusing to shake my hand after he lost because he was frustrated.
Apocalypse formations, specialist games rules and expansions, WD armies (like kroot mercs) were all things GW hosted on their site at one point or another... back when the company had a little more common sense. Guess they wanted to push AoS hard enough that they went back on their attempt to squeeze every cent out of players (at least for a little).
Someone posted an article written in like... the 90s where one of the principle game designers (I forget who) was arguing that points are an unnecessary part of (and a burden to) successful wargaming, and in many way, Age of Sigmar seeks to accomplish that vision. Whether it's successful or not depends on whether there's a large enough demographic that would prefer a point-free game where armies are agreed on cooperatively pre-game, rather than arrived at using a point system remains to be seen.
Any chance of posting a link or just sharing a transcript? I'd like to see that.
As a comparable example to AoS, Black Powder was originally released with the same intention - no points value (actually a very, very rough points value), with the idea that players would either use historical scenarios to create games or make their own.
Warlord very quickly turned around on this position, and their further releases - army lists for BP, and points values and army lists for Pike & Shotte, Hail Caesar, and Bolt Action - might be an indication that while the omission of points values might work for smaller, niche games, it's more difficult for games that look to appeal to a larger margain of players to deny these parts of the game to their players.
And I think we can agree that GW has a very large population of players that they'd like to appeal to.
I'm sorry -- it was linked in that 300-page N&R thread, I think, in the 100's. I have no idea how to find it, unfortunately.
I can imagine Rick Priestly saying something like this.
RT was meant to be RPG lite. with a GM controlling things with the players bound by a scenario. Rick was also happiest when espousing narrative forging for gaming.
Depending how you look at it GW have stuck by this approach, from scaling back during 2nd ed and stripping right back for 3rd edition 40k release all the way through 4 5 6 to 7 where virtually anything goes.
Points values for 40k probably worked best when a GM or the players could decide what to include and could scale encounters up or down accordingly.
IMO from 2nd ed the points costs within a game system designed for narrative scenario based play started to show the strain. The design studio has had to fight two opposing views for 20 odd years.
AoS is probably unique in that commercial factors, rather than a studio decision, forced the move away from points costs. Gw is a model making and selling company after all. The only limits are now on customer credit cards and overdrafts.
You can be sure that work has been undertaken to move 40k further in this direction too.
I can imagine Rick Priestly saying something like this.
RT was meant to be RPG lite. with a GM controlling things with the players bound by a scenario. Rick was also happiest when espousing narrative forging for gaming.
Depending how you look at it GW have stuck by this approach, from scaling back during 2nd ed and stripping right back for 3rd edition 40k release all the way through 4 5 6 to 7 where virtually anything goes.
Points values for 40k probably worked best when a GM or the players could decide what to include and could scale encounters up or down accordingly.
IMO from 2nd ed the points costs within a game system designed for narrative scenario based play started to show the strain. The design studio has had to fight two opposing views for 20 odd years.
AoS is probably unique in that commercial factors, rather than a studio decision, forced the move away from points costs. Gw is a model making and selling company after all. The only limits are now on customer credit cards and overdrafts.
You can be sure that work has been undertaken to move 40k further in this direction too.
Whatever Rick Priestley might have thought/may think, Jervis Johnson has been hitting the "no-points"-line for literally decades now, just as he's said that early GW ventures into tournaments were (in his mind) a mistake.
Not that the commercial stars aligning wouldn't have helped, but this is Jervis Johnson's crusade since, well, forever.
Switching to round bases. CCG like unit "combos." Free (or mostly free) access to the rules. Scenario orientated victory conditions/objectives. Smaller starting game size. I'm sure rules compendiums that are an optional purchase but useful reference are in our near future too.
I'm not saying they're doing it exactly the same (and I'm not saying they're doing it well!) but it feels to me like someone has looked at how Warmachine has grown and Fantasy hasn't and decided to ape it.
Just, as already mentioned, they've tried to copy it without really understanding it.
"Switching to round bases" - like their other game already has...not sure how that is aping PP
This is about AoS - is switching their fantasy game to round bases more or less like Warmachine?
"CCG like unit "combos" - You mean units boosting other units in some way shape or form to make them more effective? Yeah, GW hasn't been doing that for years (even without psychic powers) in 40k and to a lesser extent fantasy
Yep, and those things required a specialist unit and often a whole other phase. Now there's lots of bonuses built right into the units, just like Warmachine.
"Free (or mostly free) access to the rules" - Show me where PP's rules are completely free? Or all their unit entries are free? Sounds like GW is actually taking more of a page from CMoN than PP if they are copying anyone.
Where did I say ALL rules for free? Equally I didn't say they were copying them exactly in all things. You get the rules for each unit in the box, you don't have to pay extra, and I believe you get a rulebook in the faction starters? Warmachine requires a much lower investment in compulsory rule books than old Fantasy, and AoS does also.
"Scenario oriented victory conditions" - Something that already exists in the games the company has produced.
Never said it didn't, but it's something that occurs more frequently in WM than it did in Old Fnatasy, and is now more of a thing in AoS
"Smaller starting game size" - How is this a PP thing? GW did "true skirmish" way back and then went to mass battle. GW didn't invent it but don't act like PP did.
It's a "PP thing" because PP do it, and before AoSGW really didn't. What they used to do has no bearing on what they're doing, and what they've done is reinvent one of their main lines that just happens to bear a remarkable resemblance in terms of model count to their largest competitor in that sphere.
I don't think GW is copying PP. I think the things you claim are copying are things they've pretty much done off an on over the 30+ years they've been producing games (outside of free rules, that one is completely new). Again, not that they invented it just that it's been something they've been doing for a while. And that they just designed a system they best feel will sell models and make it easy to make purchases.
Sure, that's possible, it could all be a massive coincidence.
Personally I just can't get into Warmachine/Hordes. Part of it is the local scene. Part of it is the models (looks and materials). And part of it is I just don't have the time to play a game that changes that often at a competitive level (and I'd want to be competitive if I play WM/H). Rules are good from what I hear and people enjoy it but it's not for me. Granted not all GW games are for me either as I just didn't play 8th Fantasy but do play 40k fairly regularly and like the look of AoS. Trick is finding games that I can play locally with others without buying and painting 2-3 armies myself
I have a similar attitude, but I've no intent of getting into AoS either and right now I'm tired of 40K. The beauty is that there's loads of other stuff out there I'm keen to try/am playing!
Wonderwolf wrote: Whatever Rick Priestley might have thought/may think, Jervis Johnson has been hitting the "no-points"-line for literally decades now, just as he's said that early GW ventures into tournaments were (in his mind) a mistake.
Not that the commercial stars aligning wouldn't have helped, but this is Jervis Johnson's crusade since, well, forever.
Spoiler:
Of course it's Johnson.
I wonder if the guy drinks himself to sleep at night, or is just so deluded that his time at the office is spent talking to cardboard cut-outs of the Perry Bros, Ansell, Priestly and the others.
Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.
That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.
I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.
I think what a lot of people, including GW, miss is that not everyone that goes to tournaments goes just for the competition or to play the most mathed out solution they can find from a given army list. Plenty of people go because they want to enjoy playing the game and indulging in the hobby with other enthusiasts, and ensuring that your game rules facilitate a balanced and level playing field so that players of all levels and ambition can have a great time* fielding (broadly speaking) the models that they like encourages people to attend these events and spend money on your product.
*Sure I'm early rounds you can get a disparate difference in player skill, but at least later rounds should shake that out
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.
That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.
I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.
If you want a RPG, go play an RPG, some of us want tactical depth and Mass Battle wargames. And more of us would like tournament style gaming too.
...round bases...
...bonuses built right into the units...
... the rules for each unit in the box...
...Scenario oriented victory conditions...
...Smaller starting game size...
Who can name a system other than PP who's used these things in the last 15 years? ...nah, you're right. PP must've invented all of those things.
Loborocket wrote: The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic.
There needs to be limits though. Wizards of the Coast realized pretty early on that if you allow unrestricted free-form deck building, you're going to have a situation where decks get built with 15 mountains and 45 lightning bolts.
This was actually a cool deck. Add a few fireballs. Plague rats, too! They were nice, cheap, stupid decks for the everyday player. When MtG launched, it was ubercasual, the instructions were very simple (now look at the volume of errata, lol), and there were a bazillion cheap ways to make the game unplayable. Even some great, "I go, you die, ha ha!" combos with a good draw.
It actually took quite a while before there were such restrictions, officially
Didn't prevent us from going crazy buying truckloads of boosters, lol.
You seem to have a very different memory of the launch of Magic than I do - the Ante made people pretty damned cutthroat - which is the opposite of 'ubercasual'.
Mind you, I played Alpha - and didn't like it... the game felt like a money sink.
...round bases...
...bonuses built right into the units...
... the rules for each unit in the box...
...Scenario oriented victory conditions...
...Smaller starting game size...
Who can name a system other than PP who's used these things in the last 15 years? ...nah, you're right. PP must've invented all of those things.
Where did he say they invented them?
All that was said was AoS is merely aping WMH. Nothing more.
All that was said was AoS is merely aping WMH. Nothing more.
You're right. My issue, though, was with the attitude that this was aping them as if they were the only ones doing it. The majority of skirmish games these days feature all of those elements.
Wonderwolf wrote: Whatever Rick Priestley might have thought/may think, Jervis Johnson has been hitting the "no-points"-line for literally decades now, just as he's said that early GW ventures into tournaments were (in his mind) a mistake.
Not that the commercial stars aligning wouldn't have helped, but this is Jervis Johnson's crusade since, well, forever.
Spoiler:
Of course it's Johnson.
I wonder if the guy drinks himself to sleep at night, or is just so deluded that his time at the office is spent talking to cardboard cut-outs of the Perry Bros, Ansell, Priestly and the others.
Back in the day, he wanted Warhammer to be entirely scenario driven, with GW selling the scenarios.
In his defense, some of those early Warhammer scenarios were a lot of fun - Lichemaster, MacDeath... I enjoyed the heck out of those scenarios.
I believe, but am not certain, that the points were first introduced so that folks could create their own scenarios... instead you had folks skipping the scenarios, and going straight for two armies slaughtering each other.
That said - my biggest problem with Mr. Johnson has long been his poor consideration of balance. (His desire to maintain the Specialist Games line regained him those lost points, and then some.)
I suspect that the next half year will do well for GW (Not the one that will get its report next week - the one after.)
Maybe the one after that, as well... but I do not see AoS having legs much beyond that.
Still, it shores Kirby up for the Shareholders for a year or so....
...round bases...
...bonuses built right into the units...
... the rules for each unit in the box...
...Scenario oriented victory conditions...
...Smaller starting game size...
Who can name a system other than PP who's used these things in the last 15 years? ...nah, you're right. PP must've invented all of those things.
Where did he say they invented them?
All that was said was AoS is merely aping WMH. Nothing more.
But there's nothing specifically PP in those changes. So saying they're copying PP when many other games (Including GW games) do the same thing is inaccurate at best.
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.
That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.
I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.
If you want a RPG, go play an RPG, some of us want tactical depth and Mass Battle wargames. And more of us would like tournament style gaming too.
Apparently talys, you are having the wrong kind of fun. :(
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.
That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.
I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.
If you want a RPG, go play an RPG, some of us want tactical depth and Mass Battle wargames. And more of us would like tournament style gaming too.
Apparently talys, you are having the wrong kind of fun. :(
Wow, totally not what I was going for.
Deadnight, you've done nothing but misread, and misinform in this entire thread, I give your posts no credence, and hence shouldn't even be responding to you, but nonetheless, here is what I was aiming to say.
You're entirely welcome to have story-based gameplay, no one is stopping you (points costs aren't stopping you - just ignore them)
But to say that a great majority of people don't enjoy tournament gaming is a farce. A *lot* of people enjoy tournament gaming *and* casual gaming too. And can get both from the old systems, like 40K can WHFB(not AoS)
But GW have, in recent years, destroyed 40K to the point where heavy comp rules are needed to maintain balance and keep everything fun for everyone. Why is it so impossible for GW to maintain balance?
They acknowledge that people like playing tournaments, but want no privey to it, and thus begins the exodus... Some of us are just about ready to jump off this sinking ship if it continues to go sink and shows no signs of improvement.
Nothing is stopping you from enjoying scenario based gaming, to play out a scenario you don't exactly *need* points costs, so just ignore them. As I'm sure you've done for years.
No one is saying your fun is wrong or you can't have fun, but why must your fun conquer and eradicate mine?
@Auld Grump - other than the first 2 MtG tournaments I went to, I never played a MtG game with ante. And then I played stupid decks like plague rats that had a high win ratio without losing anything good. I think ante was a horrible idea . So did TOs, because ante was removed very early on in our scene (didn't even make it to beta iirc).
@Deadnight - apparently :( Plague conveniently ignored the part where I said that a fame system should be designed to accommodate both types of fun, where possible or offer a dual track system where 2 sets of similar rules can be used in 2 scenes.
It's so wierd... I think gamers that like stuff I don't are just people with different tastes, but some people think that folks like me should get with the program or do something other than mini wargames
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.
That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.
I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.
Bolded and underlined the relevant part.
Without any data we can't really say which is in greater demand. I tend to think "hypercompetitive" probably isn't a huge group, but I'd say "casual competitive" is probably a huge chunk of people (people who don't enter tournaments and don't cry if they lose but still want a game that is solid and balanced out of the box).
But either way it doesn't really matter because you can cater for both without sacrificing the other if you pay even just a small amount of attention to writing decent rules.
...round bases...
...bonuses built right into the units...
... the rules for each unit in the box...
...Scenario oriented victory conditions...
...Smaller starting game size...
Who can name a system other than PP who's used these things in the last 15 years? ...nah, you're right. PP must've invented all of those things.
Where did he say they invented them?
All that was said was AoS is merely aping WMH. Nothing more.
But there's nothing specifically PP in those changes. So saying they're copying PP when many other games (Including GW games) do the same thing is inaccurate at best.
But that's not my point.
They're things AoS is that WHFBwasn't and all these things also happen to be features of Warmachine.
I'm not saying they've copied some original idea that PP had that had never before occurred in the history of man, just that AoS has moved towards Warmachine in several notable respects that weren't present in Fantasy.
I wonder if the guy drinks himself to sleep at night, or is just so deluded that his time at the office is spent talking to cardboard cut-outs of the Perry Bros, Ansell, Priestly and the others.
In fairness he did write Epic:Armageddon (complete with points values) so he can at least do something right.
I'm not saying they've copied some original idea that PP had that had never before occurred in the history of man, just that AoS has moved towards Warmachine in several notable respects that weren't present in Fantasy.
Talys wrote:@Auld Grump - other than the first 2 MtG tournaments I went to, I never played a MtG game with ante. And then I played stupid decks like plague rats that had a high win ratio without losing anything good. I think ante was a horrible idea . So did TOs, because ante was removed very early on in our scene (didn't even make it to beta iirc).
@Deadnight - apparently :( Plague conveniently ignored the part where I said that a fame system should be designed to accommodate both types of fun, where possible or offer a dual track system where 2 sets of similar rules can be used in 2 scenes.
It's so wierd... I think gamers that like stuff I don't are just people with different tastes, but some people think that folks like me should get with the program or do something other than mini wargames
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.
That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.
I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.
Bolded and underlined the relevant part.
Without any data we can't really say which is in greater demand. I tend to think "hypercompetitive" probably isn't a huge group, but I'd say "casual competitive" is probably a huge chunk of people (people who don't enter tournaments and don't cry if they lose but still want a game that is solid and balanced out of the box).
But either way it doesn't really matter because you can cater for both without sacrificing the other if you pay even just a small amount of attention to writing decent rules.
Apparently both of you missed my response to Deadnight. Here you go.
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.
That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.
I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.
If you want a RPG, go play an RPG, some of us want tactical depth and Mass Battle wargames. And more of us would like tournament style gaming too.
Apparently talys, you are having the wrong kind of fun. :(
Wow, totally not what I was going for.
Deadnight, you've done nothing but misread, and misinform in this entire thread, I give your posts no credence, and hence shouldn't even be responding to you, but nonetheless, here is what I was aiming to say.
You're entirely welcome to have story-based gameplay, no one is stopping you (points costs aren't stopping you - just ignore them)
But to say that a great majority of people don't enjoy tournament gaming is a farce. A *lot* of people enjoy tournament gaming *and* casual gaming too. And can get both from the old systems, like 40K can WHFB(not AoS)
But GW have, in recent years, destroyed 40K to the point where heavy comp rules are needed to maintain balance and keep everything fun for everyone. Why is it so impossible for GW to maintain balance?
They acknowledge that people like playing tournaments, but want no privey to it, and thus begins the exodus... Some of us are just about ready to jump off this sinking ship if it continues to go sink and shows no signs of improvement.
Nothing is stopping you from enjoying scenario based gaming, to play out a scenario you don't exactly *need* points costs, so just ignore them. As I'm sure you've done for years.
No one is saying your fun is wrong or you can't have fun, but why must your fun conquer and eradicate mine?
Wonderwolf wrote: Whatever Rick Priestley might have thought/may think, Jervis Johnson has been hitting the "no-points"-line for literally decades now, just as he's said that early GW ventures into tournaments were (in his mind) a mistake.
Not that the commercial stars aligning wouldn't have helped, but this is Jervis Johnson's crusade since, well, forever.
Spoiler:
Of course it's Johnson.
I wonder if the guy drinks himself to sleep at night, or is just so deluded that his time at the office is spent talking to cardboard cut-outs of the Perry Bros, Ansell, Priestly and the others.
Back in the day, he wanted Warhammer to be entirely scenario driven, with GW selling the scenarios.
In his defense, some of those early Warhammer scenarios were a lot of fun - Lichemaster, MacDeath... I enjoyed the heck out of those scenarios.
I believe, but am not certain, that the points were first introduced so that folks could create their own scenarios... instead you had folks skipping the scenarios, and going straight for two armies slaughtering each other.
That said - my biggest problem with Mr. Johnson has long been his poor consideration of balance. (His desire to maintain the Specialist Games line regained him those lost points, and then some.)
I suspect that the next half year will do well for GW (Not the one that will get its report next week - the one after.)
Maybe the one after that, as well... but I do not see AoS having legs much beyond that.
Still, it shores Kirby up for the Shareholders for a year or so....
The Auld Grump
If GW had gone down the narrative and scenario based play route from 2nd ed 40k and whatever edition fantasy was on they would be a very different beast to what they are now.
Jarvis would be very happy mind.
AoS could be a great example IF forging the narrative wasn't an excuse for poor rules writing and lack of balance. Free rules do not excuse having to resolve poor writing. I would go as far to say that forging the narrative is now a derogatory term used by GW and held in barely concealed contempt by a company whose primary purpose is just to sell models to collectors.
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: If their primary function is to sell models, why are they still called "*Games* Workshop?"
It's almost satire at this point.
Well, they are changing some store names to 'Warhammer'. If this roll out is successful and continues you may end up with Warhammer PLC as the company name.
Talys wrote: @Auld Grump - other than the first 2 MtG tournaments I went to, I never played a MtG game with ante. And then I played stupid decks like plague rats that had a high win ratio without losing anything good. I think ante was a horrible idea . So did TOs, because ante was removed very early on in our scene (didn't even make it to beta iirc).
Well, it was officially in the Beta and first production of MtG - some people really liked the idea of Ante... and others refused to play in games with an Ante. (Often after losing something like a Black Lotus when the other guy's Ante was a Plains....)
Just was not my cuppa... but 'ubercasual' just does not describe the local scene, at all.
I wonder if the guy drinks himself to sleep at night, or is just so deluded that his time at the office is spent talking to cardboard cut-outs of the Perry Bros, Ansell, Priestly and the others.
In fairness he did write Epic:Armageddon (complete with points values) so he can at least do something right.
I think he's suffering form a George Lucas-level of freedom within GW these days. Before, his bad ideas were reined in by people who could steer things in the right direction.
With all of the previous creatives gone and GW struggling to find a way to save their original flagship product, Johnson was probably given a lot more freedom to do as he saw fit to save WHFB. Of course, if they did some market research and checked into some of the main reasons why WHFB was actually struggling (i.e. over-bloated games), then we might have had a more happy medium of AOS. Instead, some decent ideas are being sunk by something that eschews many of the concepts of the gaming experience, and not necessarily for the better.
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
I forsee a big deal coming about this, If Mierce Miniatures decides to do to GW what GW likes to do to everyone else, then GW may, in fact, have to eat humble pie and change the name *again*
I can see it turning out the way when GW tried it on CH, though.
I think Jervis slightly overdramatises things in that article. (and I've been reading Rick's similar thoughts in W:SS) I can sympathise with the stance that scenarios and narrative could play a bigger part in the hobby, but I'm not so sure about some of his other protests. For example, that wargaming is essentially 'storytelling', one step removed from RPGs. There's an element there, but RPGs are basically co-operative play in the storyline that the GM's organised, with plenty of possible non-combative situations. In wargaming... yeah. Combative competition between two or more players is where it's at. Chess isn't about black and white teaming up to explore the backgammon board, with the knights making almost-pithy comments about the shortcomings of rooks, or summat. Even when you're having casual, gentlemanly, knockabout games with the Perry twins and having a civilised chat afterwards about who did the best achieving their objectives, even without direct engagement of minis, you're still chatting about who had competed best. That's not RPG-style storytelling to me.
And to be honest, with or without scenarios, I'm not so sure 'that one time you got a really really good roll at that critical point' is that much of a well-crafted page-turner. I don't know if dice are that good an author. (If a thousand dice were rolled at a thousand typewriters...?)
I'd say my sympathies still lie with some of the people Jervis castigates as 'competitive'. Yes, the fluff for a game can be great. (That's part of GW's lasting appeal, Lobo.) You can choose your own faction of 'protagonists', with their own look and history. You can imagine them entering a new story when you set up a scenario, or even line 'em up on one table edge. But when (or while, or even before) they're lined up or waiting for a desperate last stand, I imagine most people would like to write the story themselves, or at least try, by directing their troops and heroes the way they see fit; rather than leave all the outcomes and valiant victories to what any two gamers just happen to have in their cases, or to the random dice roll. That'd be like being engrossed by the tense battle of wills in snakes 'n' ladders. Meaningless! And I think that's what'll finally dawn on a lot of gamers with AoS. At the mo it's just digging things out of a case and throwing dice. With scenarios... I dunno. I have a nasty feeling they'll end up being either too restrictive in their rosters, or nicely printed shopping lists. I might be wrong, but with even Jervis' lofty ideals, refracted through the GW prism...
So, like it or not, an awful lot of players are in this hobby for some level of competition, to test themselves, even in 'storytelling'. And the point (pun unashamedly intended) is that balanced points can play a part at even the most relaxed and fluffy of those levels, as a handy yardstick to prevent a complete kerbstomp. And as folk here have long said, nicely balanced points in a game that's not all about listbuilding could encourage themed, fluffy, storytelly army building, if the low-tier stuff isn't all that much worse than what TFGs and tourney preppers normally hunt out. Would it encourage scenarios? I dunno. But then I get the feeling that two armies lined up across a field is a fairly standard and perfectly satisfactory battle scenario for pseudo-medievals anyway.
I used to be very competitive in Warhammer 40k -- for many years, in fact -- so I know exactly what the thought process is like. The reasons that, over time, I became a much less competitive player are:
1. The number of players you're likely to meet locally are pretty small, so finding people of similar skill levels and with comparably-sized armies can be difficult.
2. This is greatly exacerbated by my desire to play with friends rather than strangers. Even if a guy I really enjoy playing with is a crappy player, I still want the game to be close.
3. Too often the games are lopsided because of lists, so instead of a game skill, you get a game of listbuilding.
4. In a game that takes 4+ hours to play, I don't want to blow my time on a game where I can foresee the outcome early on, whether due to skill or list.
5. I started wargaming when the Internet was in its nascent years; I think at the time, I had just upgraded to a 2400 baud modem, and it was more about BBS's than the WWW. As the Internet became more ubiquitous and Internet gaming got better, I found that the competitive experience online was just infinitely better, primarily due to matchmaking.
6. Over the years, I put a lot more emphasis on nicely painted minis as models rather than as game pieces. So I get the desire to use a model as a game piece; it's just not how I see them anymore, primarily -- I'm playing with models I built, not modelling a pieces to play in a game.
Still, as I said, I think it's possible to build systems that mostly accommodate both groups and makes everyone happy. The competitive version can simply restrict some of the crazier stuff that might be exciting scenario-wise, or model-awesome-wise, but plays badly.
Still, as I said, I think it's possible to build systems that mostly accommodate both groups and makes everyone happy. The competitive version can simply restrict some of the crazier stuff that might be exciting scenario-wise, or model-awesome-wise, but plays badly.
Which, I think we can both agree, AoS is not that game.
It is always possible to tailor rule sets to cater to a particular style of gamer. The thing is that it is easier to relax restrictions based on a rigorous ruleset than it is to slap restrictions on a free flowing one. The very nature of AoS as an open army creation system means that reining it in is going to be much more difficult than if they had set some limits in the first place. I suspect now that AoS no longer uses universal special rules, setting limits resulting from unintended warscroll interactions / abilities is going to be a god awful mess.
Still, as I said, I think it's possible to build systems that mostly accommodate both groups and makes everyone happy. The competitive version can simply restrict some of the crazier stuff that might be exciting scenario-wise, or model-awesome-wise, but plays badly.
Which, I think we can both agree, AoS is not that game.
No, I have never said that it was something that makes everybody happy (certainly, not at this stage). In fact, it makes one group jubilant, and another group outraged -- AoS picks winners and losers. I suppose there are some in between, but I suspect a lot of those are like me and just like the models and maybe the fluff more than the game itself.
However, this doesn't mean that it can't be successful, that it can't be fun, or that it won't make more money than Fantasy Battle (which, by all accounts, isn't a very high bar to cross). It really doesn't mean anything at all other than that I (and I think a lot of other reasonable people) think that it would be better if it would were more inclusive.
What it IS at the moment is something that people like us are talking to death O.o
Automatically Appended Next Post:
keezus wrote: It is always possible to tailor rule sets to cater to a particular style of gamer. The thing is that it is easier to relax restrictions based on a rigorous ruleset than it is to slap restrictions on a free flowing one. The very nature of AoS as an open army creation system means that reining it in is going to be much more difficult than if they had set some limits in the first place. I suspect now that AoS no longer uses universal special rules, setting limits resulting from unintended warscroll interactions / abilities is going to be a god awful mess.
Yes, I too think that it's easier to get people to accept relaxed rules than it is to get people to accept more stringent ones.
On the other hand, I think that GW genuinely wanted AoS to "break the mold" and disrupt the marketplace by looking for "another type of gamer" -- and whether or not it works out, it takes guts to spend a lot of money and energy to give it a go. They didn't dip into the pool with one foot in, then went headfirst from the hundred foot cliff, and I guess if it's gonna work, this is one way to find out.
I suppose we'll find out if Johnson was a genius or a bat**** crazy
Still, as I said, I think it's possible to build systems that mostly accommodate both groups and makes everyone happy. The competitive version can simply restrict some of the crazier stuff that might be exciting scenario-wise, or model-awesome-wise, but plays badly.
Which, I think we can both agree, AoS is not that game.
No, I have never said that it was something that makes everybody happy (certainly, not at this stage). In fact, it makes one group jubilant, and another group outraged -- AoS picks winners and losers. I suppose there are some in between, but I suspect a lot of those are like me and just like the models and maybe the fluff more than the game itself.
However, this doesn't mean that it can't be successful, that it can't be fun, or that it won't make more money than Fantasy Battle (which, by all accounts, isn't a very high bar to cross). It really doesn't mean anything at all other than that I (and I think a lot of other reasonable people) think that it would be better if it would were more inclusive.
What it IS at the moment is something that people like us are talking to death O.o
You disagree, but you then contradict yourself and say that it isn't what both parties want... Thus agreeing with my statement that AoS isn't the game that pleases both parties.
Wow, totally not what I was going for.
Deadnight, you've done nothing but misread, and misinform in this entire thread, I give your posts no credence, and hence shouldn't even be responding to you, but nonetheless, here is what I was aiming to say.
Thrn with respect, clarify your points. Your post above came across as 'you're doing it wrong. Don't contaminate wargaming with other things like rpg's.' You effectively told talys to bugger off and completely dismissed his whole attitude and way of playing. I simply disagree. As to misinforming, thrn I'll apologise if I have come across thst way.
You're entirely welcome to have story-based gameplay, no one is stopping you (points costs aren't stopping you - just ignore them)
But to say that a great majority of people don't enjoy tournament gaming is a farce. A *lot* of people enjoy tournament gaming *and* casual gaming too. And can get both from the old systems, like 40K can WHFB(not AoS)
Indeed. I'm one of them. I enjoy story based gameplay, but my personal preference is for extremrly tightly written, effective rules sets. Tournaments are a joy. For what it's worth, I mainly play warmachine and infinity, and recently jumped back into dropzone commander - forgot how much fun it is.
I actually agree with you, aos only supports one style of play. And it may not be my preference, but I am sympathetic to that type of gaming even if aos is a shoddy game.
I don't agree that tournament players are a majority. And I think a lot of people dislike the idea of tournaments. Whether we, or they are the majority doesn't really matter, at least to me.
But GW have, in recent years, destroyed 40K to the point where heavy comp rules are needed to maintain balance and keep everything fun for everyone. Why is it so impossible for GW to maintain balance?
I disagree. It's not a 'in recent years' thing at all. Gw have never maintained balance, even back to second ed or rogue trader. Saying otherwise is being dishonest. Rightly or wrongly (IMO the latter), it's not a priority. Why is it impossible? It's not, thry seemingly don't see it as worthwhile.
They acknowledge that people like playing tournaments, but want no privey to it, and thus begins the exodus... Some of us are just about ready to jump off this sinking ship if it continues to go sink and shows no signs of improvement.
If you like tournaments, you should play more tournament friendly games. For me, warmachine/hordes is top of the pile. I lost interest in gw tournaments at the end of fourth edition. I'd genuinely recommend you to give it a look, or pop down to the sub board here.
Regarding tournaments, gw washed their hands of them a while back - I remember it actually. I think it was due to a combination of reasons - some im sympathetic with, and others, not so much. I think gw probably regarded tournaments as more trouble than they were worth.When gw were trimming the fat, tournament support was one of the things that went. Anything that didn't translate to a direct profit (as opposed to indirect profits) got the axe. This, like games days and so on, was one of those things. Utterly stupid, and a proper fu to the community at large but there you go. The other reason, I think was ideologically, gw understood that loads of people wanted loads of different things in games/tournaments. Pleasing one with an 'official' tournament pack meant hacking off the rest, in their eyes. Far better to let the players control and design their own tournaments. I'm more sympathetic to the intent at least, of the latter.
I think their thought process was therefore a combination of cost cutting and letting gamers make their own games.
Or being cynical about it, 'let them make their own bloody game, it means less work for us and it costs us nothing at the end of the day'. With 'nothing' being defined as hard currency, customer goodwill is some strange malarkey that doesn't count.
Nothing is stopping you from enjoying scenario based gaming, to play out a scenario you don't exactly *need* points costs, so just ignore them. As I'm sure you've done for years.
No one is saying your fun is wrong or you can't have fun, but why must your fun conquer and eradicate mine?
I've not done it for years though - just fairly recently. And I've quite enjoyed the change of pace. I grew up playing competitive 40k, and levelled up to competitive warmachine. Got burned out by the former and walked away from the game entirely, recognised an incoming burnout from the latter and took some time out before coming back in last year, Guns blazing, but foot not so hard on the accelerator. I get tournaments. I enjoy thrm immensely. I also enjoy other types of gaming, just as something different.
I have no intention of having 'my' fun conquer of eradicate 'yours' - I enjoy the same types of gaming as you do. Thing is, whether you wanted to or not, you implied the very same thing you accused me of to talys. why can't talys have his wargames with rpg elements? You told him to bugger off and play an rpg, as if his whole style of play has no place in 'wargaming'. And to be fair, I don't know the guy, and a lot of his posts make me shake my head, but I'll tell you what - I'd love to get a game in with him - he seems like a fun guy. There are other ways to play games. These are not wrong.
I'll reiterate. I have no interest in conquering or eradicating your fun - if thsts what you think I'm all about then you are completely mistaken.
Like I said, I do just what you suggest with a few of my friends. Friday night gaming. I can't be arsed with heavy rules lawyering after a week at work. I want to ease it back and relax for a few hours. With others, it's warmachine steamroller 2015 packs, and we get together every couple of weeks for all-day gaming. Properly cut throat. Great fun.
keezus wrote:
The thing is that it is easier to relax restrictions based on a rigorous ruleset than it is to slap restrictions on a free flowing one.
Yes, I too think that it's easier to get people to accept relaxed rules than it is to get people to accept more stringent ones.
I think its fair to say that it benefits everyone when there is a tightly written and rigorous set of rules. Scenario and narrative based play can be enjoyed - where rules can actively be tweaked to achieve a desired effect or flavor. Min max gamers will continue to enjoy their list building and strategy devising. casual gamers can really just have a pick up and play game.
There is no need for two sets of rules for both supposed camps.
Those filthy model collecting hobbyists can go hang though.
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: You disagree, but you then contradict yourself and say that it isn't what both parties want... Thus agreeing with my statement that AoS isn't the game that pleases both parties.
We're saying the same thing :\
I'll try to be succinct: AoS isn't a product that pleases both parties. That doesn't mean it can't be successful, though; it just means that one group will be grumpy.
keezus wrote: The thing is that it is easier to relax restrictions based on a rigorous ruleset than it is to slap restrictions on a free flowing one.
Yes, I too think that it's easier to get people to accept relaxed rules than it is to get people to accept more stringent ones.
I think its fair to say that it benefits everyone when there is a tightly written and rigorous set of rules. Scenario and narrative based play can be enjoyed - where rules can actively be tweaked to achieve a desired effect or flavor. Min max gamers will continue to enjoy their list building and strategy devising. casual gamers can really just have a pick up and play game.
There is no need for two sets of rules for both supposed camps.
Those filthy model collecting hobbyists can go hang though.
As I see it, the (only?) reasons for NOT having points/a mathematical balancing system are:
1. Realizing Jervis Johnson's (and maybe Rick Priestley's) vision of a point-free system where the game is explicitly NOT meant for competitors. Who knows, maybe this will become a big thing, or maybe it won't be popular at all.
2. Shooing away the competitive types means the people who DO play AoS are probably going to be like-minded narrative-driven casuals (meaning, if you can find people to play with, they're gonna want the same thing as you)
3. By emphasizing a point-free system, people who don't like point-based systems or list building or list building for advantage will take a look at this product. I have no idea what the size of this demographic is
4. This point-free thing has generated more chatter for AoS than the most perfect, awesome rules could ever have done. We're all talking about it, and 4 weeks ago, most of us could not have given a hoot about Fantasy. Granted, a lot of this is negative. But through the GW lens, "ye who thinketh point free is bad... this game was not meant for you!"
The filthy model collecting hobbyists really don't care one way or the other They're gonna buy the models anyways, and the ones that like to read the fluff will buy that too. GW didn't even need to even write a game system to get me to buy a box each of the Sigmarites, and the starter. They could have just released the models and I would have bought them (note: if they had come from PP, I would also have bought them!).
It's most certainly not because "GW was lazy". GW didn't put points on stuff because they REALLY didn't want this game to be another game of competitive list-building for advantage. Though I very much like list building, I DON'T like list building for advantage (ie I rather start a game with a fair fight than an advantageous list, even though I like building lists). I'm not sure how you can reconcile that, though. Probably can't.
There are DEFINITELY some people who don't like building lists, don't like point systems, etc. I've seen them in person, at local stores, and they're here at Dakka (the AoSGD thread has a few of them that fall perfectly in GW's target demo). Intuitively, I think there are actually enough of these people to support AoS as a game. The real question is, whether they'll spend enough to make it a game that GW thinks is worth supporting in the long run.
After all, there were definitely enough people to support a WHFB community; it just wasn't profitable enough (or perhaps not profitable at all) to keep running.
mechanicalhorizon wrote: I was looking at the AoS models on GW's site and noticed they changed the names of many races and thought maybe it was due to IP reasons, so they can copyright/trademark more.
Thing is, there are other companies using the name Aelf already, 2 that come to mind are Mierce Miniatures and Red Box Games (although RBG extends it as Aelfar).
I thought they had changed the names for legal reasons?
They may have attempted to, however it would still be idiotic.
Third party bits people can just change their text to read "compatible with GW Aelf kits" and still not be breaching any copyright law, as we saw in the Chapterhouse case. If GW did do these idiotic name changes for IP reasons then it is just further proof, as if we needed it, that they have absolutely no understanding how IP law actually works.
Talys wrote: On the other hand, I think that GW genuinely wanted AoS to "break the mold" and disrupt the marketplace by looking for "another type of gamer" -- and whether or not it works out, it takes guts to spend a lot of money and energy to give it a go. They didn't dip into the pool with one foot in, then went headfirst from the hundred foot cliff, and I guess if it's gonna work, this is one way to find out.
Considering that GW doesn't advertise beyond it's customer base, I'd say the only thing that GW achieved is disrupt their own market. Their current strategy is entirely dependent on the independents for exposure. While they might truly believe that market research is otiose in a niche, they'll need market research if they venture beyond. This doesn't seem to have happened. They don't have a controlled presence on the internet beyond their own website - the initial reviews aren't particularly favorable. Boardgame Geek which has pretty high readership beyond GW's normal market gives AoS 2.5/5. Not a very auspicious start.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: As I see it, the (only?) reasons for NOT having points/a mathematical balancing system are:
1. Realizing Jervis Johnson's (and maybe Rick Priestley's) vision of a point-free system where the game is explicitly NOT meant for competitors. Who knows, maybe this will become a big thing, or maybe it won't be popular at all.
2. Shooing away the competitive types means the people who DO play AoS are probably going to be like-minded narrative-driven casuals (meaning, if you can find people to play with, they're gonna want the same thing as you)
3. By emphasizing a point-free system, people who don't like point-based systems or list building or list building for advantage will take a look at this product. I have no idea what the size of this demographic is
4. This point-free thing has generated more chatter for AoS than the most perfect, awesome rules could ever have done. We're all talking about it, and 4 weeks ago, most of us could not have given a hoot about Fantasy. Granted, a lot of this is negative. But through the GW lens, "ye who thinketh point free is bad... this game was not meant for you!"
There are DEFINITELY some people who don't like building lists, don't like point systems, etc. I've seen them in person, at local stores, and they're here at Dakka (the AoSGD thread has a few of them that fall perfectly in GW's target demo). Intuitively, I think there are actually enough of these people to support AoS as a game. The real question is, whether they'll spend enough to make it a game that GW thinks is worth supporting in the long run.
The above reasons don't work in the real world for a reason. As everyone in the GW Financials thread is so fond of saying... GW is in the business of making money. Addressing the above points directly:
1. Deliberately making the game "toxic to competitive types" artificially limits the customer base you reach.
2. Using the strategy from point no. 1 will only remove the "fair play competitive types" who wish to play in a rigid framework. The point-free system allows for the most unrestricted degenerate WAAC style armies, so these players are not necessarily pushed away. Ergo, the gaming community will polarize into "filthy degenerates" and "filthy casuals" type crowds. This does not provide a good environment to growing the customer base and is an excellent breeding ground for rage-quitting if you are from one camp and the only groups within your travel radius are of the other.
3. No. 3 assumes that new customers know about Age of Sigmar. Considering that GW doesn't advertise outside its channels, and word of mouth on the interwebs generally boils down to a resounding meh - not sure that this is a realistic expectation.
4. Bad publicity for the Blackberry Z10 certainly did get BB mentioned in the news a lot. This did not translate into sales.
While the current configuration for AoS is fine for a "Warhammer Jr" type game, IMHO, there is zero advantage to going with a free form system as one of your primary tent pole products.
There's also a possibility in regard to point 2 that in order to avoid the WAAC players running riot, GW (assuming it is both aware of the situation and cares to do anything about it) ensures that new units become so vanilla that it will turn off the fluffy players, effectively rendering AoS a game which nobody wants to play.
@Az: This doesn't seem to be GW's modus operandii... I would expect new Warscrolls to be more uber rather than less so, since the casuals will probably buy one and the WAAC will have to buy 10 of them.
TFG: Hey bro... want to play Age of Sigmar? My army is meant to represent a tribe of Bloodthirsters who have fallen under the thrall of Tzeench and so they're living together with a bunch of Fateweavers because that model profile better represents the fluff of my army.
It's most certainly not because "GW was lazy". GW didn't put points on stuff because they REALLY didn't want this game to be another game of competitive list-building for advantage. Though I very much like list building, I DON'T like list building for advantage (ie I rather start a game with a fair fight than an advantageous list, even though I like building lists). I'm not sure how you can reconcile that, though. Probably can't.
One point of contention. "Laziness" might be the case here, if GW has just decided that its easier to release warscrolls and models with big, crazy rules without having to spend time/money paying designers to worry about points costs and balance, to where the only thing that'll determine what GW customers want to buy is the price. So it's not a choice to be points free because it's a inherently better way of presenting a "narrative" or scenario based game, but it's certainly easier to think of rules, names, and keywords, splash that onto a PDF for their warscrolls, and then take a picture of some studio models and slap that on there as well.
keezus wrote: @Az: This doesn't seem to be GW's modus operandii... I would expect new Warscrolls to be more uber rather than less so, since the casuals will probably buy one and the WAAC will have to buy 10 of them.
TFG: Hey bro... want to play Age of Sigmar? My army is meant to represent a tribe of Bloodthirsters who have fallen under the thrall of Tzeench and so they're living together with a bunch of Fateweavers because that model profile better represents the fluff of my army.
That's entirely more likely, but I've more or less given up on trying to use GWs past behaviour to predict their future actions, I think they're trying everything they can to try and boost sales, but with the massive handicap of not necessarily knowing why they're not selling.
Well, everything except put effort into making a solid game...
They seemed to have gained some 40k players who may or may not stick around when they get bord of playing the same game twice but have also lost a good load of players who supported the old system.
I don't understand why they couldn't run AoS as the LotR replacement and do a fresh 9th edition set at the end of times and include both square and round bases with the miniatures.
keezus wrote: 1. Deliberately making the game "toxic to competitive types" artificially limits the customer base you reach.
2. Using the strategy from point no. 1 will only remove the "fair play competitive types" who wish to play in a rigid framework. The point-free system allows for the most unrestricted degenerate WAAC style armies, so these players are not necessarily pushed away. Ergo, the gaming community will polarize into "filthy degenerates" and "filthy casuals" type crowds. This does not provide a good environment to growing the customer base and is an excellent breeding ground for rage-quitting if you are from one camp and the only groups within your travel radius are of the other.
You're wrong. There are many companies that are purposely exclusionary in order to gain marketshare in their target demographic. For example, why doesn't a vegetarian restaurant serve a couple of meat dishes? You're arguing that they're purposely limiting their customer base, and it would make it a lot easier for the couple where one person isn't a vegetarian to go there.
As a vegan, I can tell you that I would pay more and give priority to a pure vegetarian restaurant, because I know that it's for me. I'll even make an effort to drag a non-vegan to a vegetarian restaurant to try out something different.
3. No. 3 assumes that new customers know about Age of Sigmar. Considering that GW doesn't advertise outside its channels, and word of mouth on the interwebs generally boils down to a resounding meh - not sure that this is a realistic expectation.
A lot of people are hearing about Age of Sigmar, because people are talking about Age of Sigmar. I found out about it because they launched it on a Magic prerelease launch. It's also prominent at the hobby shop that my friends and I visit.
There are a half dozen of us who play Magic together, in a way that you'd probably all hate, but we collectively bought 4 starter boxes, and we are all going to give Sigmar a try. None of us are "hardcore gamers", and I'm the only one who is a miniature wargamer of any kind, and only because my boyfriend introduced me to Warhammer 40,000. And he mostly paints my models!.
By the way, I haven't seen an ad for any miniature wargame, ever, on tv, on the radio, or in a magazine that's anything other than a wargaming magazine (and what a waste of money that is, because anyone buying the magazine already is going to know about the product).
4. Bad publicity for the Blackberry Z10 certainly did get BB mentioned in the news a lot. This did not translate into sales.
While the current configuration for AoS is fine for a "Warhammer Jr" type game, IMHO, there is zero advantage to going with a free form system as one of your primary tent pole products.
Well, I probably like Age of Sigmar a lot more than you, and I actually bought one. I guarantee you I wouldn't have tried it if it were Warhammer Fantasy Battle 9th edition, and if it wasn't clear that this was a low-model, campaign & story centered game. That's actually exactly what I want.
If there are campaigns that continue to come out that say, "buy these models and play these stories", the friends I play with will probably do exactly that. I think this is much better than Warhammer 40,000 -- as much as I love my Orks, I hate having to plan out armies and then being told this and this and this are the reasons why it's not a good army (which is true: I'm not very good at it, and I don't play very much, and won't read about all the other super armies, so I never will be).
In summary: Age of Sigmar's, "Side A take these models, Side B take these models, use this layout" is perfect for what I'm looking for, and so is the idea that we are actors in a story.
If 9th edition WHFB would have been released people would be bitching about one thing or another. I had little hope that GW would have fixed some of the major problems with 8th edition with out creating a new problem in 9th. Face it, GW is just horrible when it comes to writing rules.
@Vyxen - thanks for making my point for me. Yes, the vegetarian restaurant analogy is just perfect.
@Chute82 - GW has always been the company that's made fun rules that weren't perfect, and for as long as I can remember, people have been complaining about GW's rules, so it's not like this is anything different.
If anything, in my opinion, AoS represents the style of game GW always wanted to write, but never had the guts to, because they didn't want to lose out on sales. They finally went ahead and did it because FB couldn't get any worse
You're wrong. There are many companies that are purposely exclusionary in order to gain marketshare in their target demographic. For example, why doesn't a vegetarian restaurant serve a couple of meat dishes? You're arguing that they're purposely limiting their customer base, and it would make it a lot easier for the couple where one person isn't a vegetarian to go there.
As a vegan, I can tell you that I would pay more and give priority to a pure vegetarian restaurant, because I know that it's for me. I'll even make an effort to drag a non-vegan to a vegetarian restaurant to try out something different.
Because if a vegan/vegetarian restaraunt serves meat it stops becoming a vegan restaraunt?
In order for it to then sell to it's core customers (vegans) it'd need to have a seperate meat kitchen, and potentially a separate vegetarian kitchen, then there would probably be complaints from customers about meat being served next to them.
A better analogy would be designer bags - they don't cost $5000 because they cost $5000 to sell, they cost that because they become a status symbol, you buy it to show off.
The only reason you exclude customers is to make your product more desirable to your target audience. There's no reason someone selling a game should be trying to exclude the "competitive" gamers to draw in the "fluff" gamers. Especially since everything that a competitive gamer wants also results in a better experience to the fluff player.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: @Chute82 - GW has always been the company that's made fun rules that weren't perfect, and for as long as I can remember, people have been complaining about GW's rules, so it's not like this is anything different.
The rules have always been pretty hit and miss, but you can at least play them as is, and it's fairly obvious what the authors meant. There are a few exceptions that need to be made for balance but on the whole it's usable if not great. AoS doesn't have that. It's more akin to having a car with horrible fuel economy at freeway speeds, so they solved the problem by removing the speedo.
@Herzlos -- sweet, finally, I can tell the po-leece "Ocifer, I wuz not going too fass!"
I think it's more like, people weren't happy with the station wagon because customers were buying minivans and sports cars. So instead of making a minivan or sports car, so Games Workshop decided to get into the bicycle market, because they realized, nobody was making bicycles. The only thing is, they might be making bikes in a city that rains 300 days out of the year.
Or some other terrible analogy
But you're right -- the reason create an exclusionary product is to make it more desirable to your target audience. A lot of "more casual" gamers (whatever you want to call them, people who aren't competitive at all, and like Vyxen don't like figuring out what to put in an army, but enjoy storytelling, etc.) are attracted to an environment where there just aren't any of those competitive types... I guess... which was my original hypothesis of why one might make a game this way.
I'm not saying this is so, I'm just making a guess. I could be totally wrong
Is that true though, are casuals really after a game which has no competive players so badly that they'll go for rules that don't even pretend to have balance?
I mean, that sounds like who GW is targetting, but beyond the forums I've no experience of people who fall into the "clear rules are the devil" camp. It might be I've just never met them though, or until now they've been able to make do with playing clear rules in a casual way.
I have to say though, there's been almost no chatter about AoS on my games clubs facebook, and there were no games of it this week. There was a fantasy game though.
Edit: Make it a pedal car and your analogy is complete.
AOS is a game for people who want to play at playing a wargame, and move pretty models around and throw a lot of dice. The rules are simple. The models are pretty. Each unit has a fun special rule. Lots of dice are thrown. There are people who like that.
Vyxen wrote: You're wrong. There are many companies that are purposely exclusionary in order to gain marketshare in their target demographic. For example, why doesn't a vegetarian restaurant serve a couple of meat dishes? You're arguing that they're purposely limiting their customer base, and it would make it a lot easier for the couple where one person isn't a vegetarian to go there.
I respectfully disagree. Targeting the vegetarian demographic for a restaurant is fine because that is your primary business plan and there is sufficient customers within that demographic to support the business plan.
The reason this doesn't work as well with Games Workshop is that their primary business plan is to sell miniature games, which is a niche subset of the larger gaming market. With AoS, they are targeting a niche market, within a niche market, within a niche market: i.e. AoS is a subset of Fantasy Games, which is a subset of Miniature Games. Games Workshop is like a restaurant that serves Italian food (i.e. serves the Fantasy miniature game market) deciding that they can't make enough money under the current regime, so they restructure and make the store only sell Vegan Italian Food. All the old options are there, just vegan versions. While vegan customers are overjoyed (and might bring in some new customers), and old customers might be persuaded to return if the vegan food is good, this plan removes all those not looking for vegan food from the target demographic. This only works if the new customers outnumber the old customers. Keep in mind, because they are an Italian restaurant, they by definition exclude all people NOT looking for Italian food: i.e. people looking for Tacos, Sushi, Chow Mein and Burgers etc. On top of this, GW is the kind of company that won't canvass it's customers on what they want, nor will they give warning that this change is coming. It will just happen.
I'm glad that your play group likes Age of Sigmar. I hope that GW continues to improve it. I've got no dog in this fight, but I find some of their decisions a bit head-scratching. Happy gaming!
Herzlos wrote: Is that true though, are casuals really after a game which has no competive players so badly that they'll go for rules that don't even pretend to have balance?
I mean, that sounds like who GW is targetting, but beyond the forums I've no experience of people who fall into the "clear rules are the devil" camp. It might be I've just never met them though, or until now they've been able to make do with playing clear rules in a casual way.
I have to say though, there's been almost no chatter about AoS on my games clubs facebook, and there were no games of it this week. There was a fantasy game though.
Edit: Make it a pedal car and your analogy is complete.
Flinstones FTW.
I don't think AoS has unclear rules though. There's a difference between saying, "use this campaign or write your own scenario with equivalent armies" and, "these rules are ambiguous or unclear".
And yeah, I've said time and again, I'm not sure how big this demo is. Obviously, it's greater than zero, but enough to be interesting to GW, which is a company that likes big, big profits? Who knows. Frankly, I think there are a lot of miniature/wargaming companies that would think they died and went to heaven to have the volume of models & sales that WHFB probably generated in 2014. Also, the chatter on traditional groups won't be a great metric, because (I think) the game is going after players who are nontraditional wargamers (or perhaps, disaffected wargamers who like minis) -- and these won't be on the same groups.
@Talys: That's why I think the Boardgame Geek aggregated rating of 5.2/10 is interesting. That site serves a wider demographic and has pretty heavy traffic from a more traditional game perspective. The breakdown graph is of particular interest, as the votes are clustered heavily in the ">=7/10 like" (23/52), "don't like <=3/10" (21/52) with less than 20% in the "meh" (8/52) categories.
I don't know if we'll stick with it, but we'll give it a shot. Just to be clear, it's not like we're offended by people who are competitive wargaming types, or don't want to share a game with them! It's more like, our group would have never even looked at Age of Sigmar if it was another game like Warmachines, or "Warhammer Fantasy Lite". It's main "selling feature" to us was that we didn't have to worry as much about figuring out what army to take.
If they added a points system next month, as long as they didn't take anything away from the campaign stuff, it wouldn't bother me at all. And I think they will add some way to make more people interested in the game as time goes on.
@keezus - huh. That IS pretty interesting... Thanks for sharing. It kind of confirms my suspicions: Some people love it, and a lot of people hate it.
All that really remains is whether or not the niche of the niche of the niche is big enough.
Interestingly, this is a little bit like politics (incidentally, I'm a huge politico); you can achieve great success with your base by being very extreme in your position. In a parliamentary system, it might assure you a smaller voice; in a winner-takes-all system it usually means you'll ultimately lose. What zealous, exclusionary extremism wins you is loyalty from people on your side of the fence, even if they are not as zealous or extreme.
The split that you gave is probably good news for AoS. I would have thought the number of people hating it would be quite a bit higher than the number of people loving it.
The sample size is still very small at 52 votes, so it is possible that we are looking at a skewed result based on initial gut-reactions. 40k has over a 1000 votes. Interestingly, 40k only rates a 7.8 (updated for 7th Ed)/10 on Board Game Geek, but if you look at the distribution, you'll see that its clustered around the 5-8 range, meaning that the rating is a more general community consensus.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Uh oh. Just checked Fantasy Battle 8th ed's rating... it's 7.1... even higher than 40k. It is still a small sample size at 111 votes, but this does not bode well for AoS if the Fantasy gamers seem to vastly prefer 8th.
-edit- For completeness:
SW: X-Wing has a rating of 7.9 (11k votes)
SW: Armada has a rating of 8.3 (684 votes)
Warmachine mk2/Hordes ml2 has a rating of 8.2/8.3 (670 votes/206 votes respectively)
Malifaux 2E has a rating of 8.3 (110 votes)
Infinity has a rating of 8 (360 votes)
At the end of the day, loving the game isn't enough... People gotta open up their wallets
I've never had illusions about 40k being a technically great game, yet it's fun, and I buy a lot of models and books for it. On the basis of technical excellence, I'd give both XWing and WMH high marks, yet XWing gets practically none of my money, and WMH gets some, but hardly any game time.
Vyxen wrote: You're wrong. There are many companies that are purposely exclusionary in order to gain marketshare in their target demographic. For example, why doesn't a vegetarian restaurant serve a couple of meat dishes? You're arguing that they're purposely limiting their customer base, and it would make it a lot easier for the couple where one person isn't a vegetarian to go there.
I respectfully disagree. Targeting the vegetarian demographic for a restaurant is fine because that is your primary business plan and there is sufficient customers within that demographic to support the business plan.
The reason this doesn't work as well with Games Workshop is that their primary business plan is to sell miniature games, which is a niche subset of the larger gaming market. With AoS, they are targeting a niche market, within a niche market, within a niche market: i.e. AoS is a subset of Fantasy Games, which is a subset of Miniature Games. Games Workshop is like a restaurant that serves Italian food (i.e. serves the Fantasy miniature game market) deciding that they can't make enough money under the current regime, so they restructure and make the store only sell Vegan Italian Food. All the old options are there, just vegan versions. While vegan customers are overjoyed (and might bring in some new customers), and old customers might be persuaded to return if the vegan food is good, this plan removes all those not looking for vegan food from the target demographic. This only works if the new customers outnumber the old customers. Keep in mind, because they are an Italian restaurant, they by definition exclude all people NOT looking for Italian food: i.e. people looking for Tacos, Sushi, Chow Mein and Burgers etc. On top of this, GW is the kind of company that won't canvass it's customers on what they want, nor will they give warning that this change is coming. It will just happen.
I'm glad that your play group likes Age of Sigmar. I hope that GW continues to improve it. I've got no dog in this fight, but I find some of their decisions a bit head-scratching. Happy gaming!
To further your metaphor, it's as if an Italian restaurant, upon receiving complaints that the meal quality was slipping and the prices were getting too high, decided that the best course of action was to switch to a vegan-only menu, keep the same lousy chef, and increase the prices!
The core of the problem with AoS is that the rules are bad. Simplistic, untested rules are bad. A lack of a balancing mechanic (beyond "what can you afford?") is bad. There's no getting around it. To go back to the restaurant metaphor, I'd be happy to try vegan Italian food, but only if it's good. If the food is bad, it doesn't matter if it's vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, Italian, Scandinavian, or Ethiopian. I won't be going back.
We are all in agreement that the sample sizes are small, and the ratings can only be considered a curiosity at this point. Some of the up/down votes also have comments.
Regarding bandwagoning: It appears that only registered members of the site can provide ratings. If that is the case, registration is in itself is a barrier to casual drive-by up/down votes.
fwiwAOS sales on ebay have been quite high, I have seen many people selling the models/box sets with over 50+ sold, which for the amount of time they have been out is quite high.
Compared to some armies which have been out for years and have sold ~100 kits for the same faction from the same ebay sellers.
success here is not measured by what a incredibly small insignificant amount of people think, its measured by the purchase of product from the retailer.
blaktoof wrote: fwiwAOS sales on ebay have been quite high, I have seen many people selling the models/box sets with over 50+ sold, which for the amount of time they have been out is quite high.
Compared to some armies which have been out for years and have sold ~100 kits for the same faction from the same ebay sellers.
success here is not measured by what a incredibly small insignificant amount of people think, its measured by the purchase of product from the retailer.
and AoS is selling well.
But as GW don't do market research they do not know why. All they know is AoS is moving X amount of units.
Are these going to people actually playing the game? Are they going to painters? Are they going to 40k players wishing to convert them to Khorne Bezerkers/Custodes? Are they going to people with money to burn to simply put them in a grinder to spite GW? Are they even going to be used in a GW game?
All of these are quite pertinenet questions that GW will never know the answer to.
Vyxen wrote: You're wrong. There are many companies that are purposely exclusionary in order to gain marketshare in their target demographic. For example, why doesn't a vegetarian restaurant serve a couple of meat dishes? You're arguing that they're purposely limiting their customer base, and it would make it a lot easier for the couple where one person isn't a vegetarian to go there.
I respectfully disagree. Targeting the vegetarian demographic for a restaurant is fine because that is your primary business plan and there is sufficient customers within that demographic to support the business plan.
The reason this doesn't work as well with Games Workshop is that their primary business plan is to sell miniature games, which is a niche subset of the larger gaming market. With AoS, they are targeting a niche market, within a niche market, within a niche market: i.e. AoS is a subset of Fantasy Games, which is a subset of Miniature Games. Games Workshop is like a restaurant that serves Italian food (i.e. serves the Fantasy miniature game market) deciding that they can't make enough money under the current regime, so they restructure and make the store only sell Vegan Italian Food. All the old options are there, just vegan versions. While vegan customers are overjoyed (and might bring in some new customers), and old customers might be persuaded to return if the vegan food is good, this plan removes all those not looking for vegan food from the target demographic. This only works if the new customers outnumber the old customers. Keep in mind, because they are an Italian restaurant, they by definition exclude all people NOT looking for Italian food: i.e. people looking for Tacos, Sushi, Chow Mein and Burgers etc. On top of this, GW is the kind of company that won't canvass it's customers on what they want, nor will they give warning that this change is coming. It will just happen.
I'm glad that your play group likes Age of Sigmar. I hope that GW continues to improve it. I've got no dog in this fight, but I find some of their decisions a bit head-scratching. Happy gaming!
Though GW seems to have decided that not only must it be Vegan, they have replaced all of the tomato sauces with Heinz Ketchup.
Anyways, yeah, perhaps I could've worded my response a bit...better before, But I'm sure we've all said something at least once in our lives that could've been phrased better as well, we're only human (well, mostly, haha)
I think we can all agree systems that can cater to both the scenario and competitive crowds are good, that's why I loved 5th edition 40K so much, aside from the super terrible "True" Line of Sight (DAMN YOU GW!!!) 5th edition was overall a very balanced ruleset. Things did start to spiral out of control with the Blood Angels book though (Come on, Who else loved the Dreadnought lightning claws that generated extra attacks? I loved it, and nicknamed my Furioso the "weed whacker of doom and Venerator of red splatter)"
Honestly, even using the current system, creating thematic forces to play out a story isn't hard, the hardest part is writing the story (Yeah, been working on this for a year... Still not done)
I really hope GW doesn't come after 40K, because I love playing 40K tournaments, and I love competitive gaming. Even though I casually game, it doesn't mean I don't want to win. But it is nice to see who built the better list.
AoS doesn't do it for me.
And Deadnight, I'm already working on a Convergence of Cyriss army for Warmachine, So far I've only decided on 25 points of my army, and it's already pretty busted. Modulators FTW!!
I'm probably going to go to ebay for multiples of the Khornate lot, I need some new Khorne-themed cultists and some choppy looking berserkers with new Armor. I wish GW would make a new berserker kit, but alas, they're probably holding a new KB kit hostage until these sell well. Oh well.
Hey, the Romans were putting mustard on burgers before ketchup ever had tomato paste added to it! (Ketchup used to be a vinegar sauce used on fish... but the Brits added tomato paste, because....)
The Auld Grump - the Romans had hamburgers before Hamburg was even founded... a beef patty, served between two buns. With mustard.
*EDIT* On topic - my real question is whether AoS will be sustainable - which is where I think that the game will fail.
If I am correct, then the second question becomes - how long until it does fail?
*EDIT* On topic - my real question is whether AoS will be sustainable - which is where I think that the game will fail.
If I am correct, then the second question becomes - how long until it does fail?
That's an interesting question and I think it's been discussed a bit in this thread.
I think there are a few factors at play here:
1. Free rules. GW has created an environment whereby the entire success of the game depends upon their ability to get people to buy miniatures.
2. Miniatures. If enough people like the miniatures and buy them, this could keep going for some time, years.
3. Ongoing support. People often blame poor WHFB sales on the death of WHFB but let's be honest; before End Times WHFB updates to armies and models were fairly infrequent with the company dedicating the bulk of its resources to 40K. Almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom. "WHFB isn't doing well, pull its resources and dedicate them to 40k!" People won't buy an unsupported product so if they do the same with AoS, it'll go the way of WHFB.
4. Pricing. High prices for 5 models has become commonplace in 40K; outside of the reasonable deal for the box-set, people adding to their forces will be dependent upon how big of a game they want to play/ is fun to play because I can't see even a "skirmish" game being fun with less than 20 models and that might become costly if someone's not interested in the two box forces and the new pricing structure holds true with upcoming model releases.
In my inexpert opinion, the next 2 years will give us primary indicators as to the staying power of AoS. You've got to allow time for the, "ooh, new shiny" to wear off and people to get tired of dancing, bribing their opponent, and shouting "for the lady!" every time they want to roll dice.
The major issue with AoS is the rule set.
Without specific scenarios as in WMH the games will end up in large combat phases.
This will make the game boring and players will soon get uninterested.
blaktoof wrote: fwiwAOS sales on ebay have been quite high, I have seen many people selling the models/box sets with over 50+ sold, which for the amount of time they have been out is quite high.
Compared to some armies which have been out for years and have sold ~100 kits for the same faction from the same ebay sellers.
success here is not measured by what a incredibly small insignificant amount of people think, its measured by the purchase of product from the retailer.
and AoS is selling well.
But as GW don't do market research they do not know why. All they know is AoS is moving X amount of units.
Are these going to people actually playing the game? Are they going to painters? Are they going to 40k players wishing to convert them to Khorne Bezerkers/Custodes? Are they going to people with money to burn to simply put them in a grinder to spite GW? Are they even going to be used in a GW game?
All of these are quite pertinenet questions that GW will never know the answer to.
GW cares not to whom the models flow, only that the models flow.
I pretty much agree with agnosto above, with the exception of the 5-model price structure of GW being high. If you walk into an independent and look at any of the miniature games that are featured with prime real estate, you're mostly looking at premium models that run in the $10+ ppm range.
Of course, there's cheaper stuff like Heroclix and Reaper minis, but I think these service a different market. Not that there isn't crossover -- some people who buy GW/Wyrd/PP will pick up the occasional Bones model for sure, but, those nice bits of plastic meant to be modeled & painted don't come cheap. Even a lot of Reaper's single minis aren't really *cheap* anymore (and some are God-awful ugly!).
The self-fulfilling prophecy is pretty much it -- GW had a long streak where they didn't properly service Fantasy Battle because of declining sales, and that meant it just declined further.
Oh, on another note, if people like AoS, they'll buy the books, which are a super-duper high profit margin (even compared to miniatures). I shelled out $50 USD to get the big book -- and that's with a hefty discount -- which is probably the upper limit I would pay for a book just for fluff on a game that I don't plan to play much. That book, incidentally, has fantastic artwork and photography, good fluff, a reasonable amount in the way of campaigns, and not much of anything for people who just want to play pickup games (unless your idea of a pickup game is to play a campaign scenario).
The problem with pricing is that it's not going to be evenly distributed. 5 models for $45 or $50 is high when compared to the starter box. What if you don't want one of those armies? There isn't an alternative discount, entry source for new players. I'm not a huge fan of PP but one thing that they do right, in my opinion, is offer a discounted starter for every force in their games, this helps remove the barrier to entry for new players and a reasonable starting point for building armies. GW does this but always with limited releases and not in a coherent, comprehensive manner which is a missed opportunity in my mind.
The problem with pricing is that it's not going to be evenly distributed. 5 models for $45 or $50 is high when compared to the starter box. What if you don't want one of those armies? There isn't an alternative discount, entry source for new players. I'm not a huge fan of PP but one thing that they do right, in my opinion, is offer a discounted starter for every force in their games, this helps remove the barrier to entry for new players and a reasonable starting point for building armies. GW does this but always with limited releases and not in a coherent, comprehensive manner which is a missed opportunity in my mind.
Not to mention GW considerably downsized their battleforces, and maintained the high price on them, so now, you're not even coming ahead at all. $100 for a furioso, a captain, and a tac squad... You'll get eaten alive on tax anyways, it'd just be better to buy from an ebay discounter.
The problem with pricing is that it's not going to be evenly distributed. 5 models for $45 or $50 is high when compared to the starter box. What if you don't want one of those armies? There isn't an alternative discount, entry source for new players. I'm not a huge fan of PP but one thing that they do right, in my opinion, is offer a discounted starter for every force in their games, this helps remove the barrier to entry for new players and a reasonable starting point for building armies. GW does this but always with limited releases and not in a coherent, comprehensive manner which is a missed opportunity in my mind.
The current starter boxes that PP has are FAR superior to the old starter boxes. They are a great value! Still, if you want to play a 50 pt game, or be "competitive" with what people play, you're going to be buying some extra models.
I am guessing that as GW moves along, they're going to make more starter boxes for different factions; at the moment, a lot of the factions don't really have the right models/distribution for AoS anyhow. Keep in mind that the two "campaign" boxes, Deathstorm and Stormclaw, are a fantastic value for models, but terrible starter boxes -- like, who wants tactical terminators, a Furioso, Death Company and a Terminator Captain... as the start of their blood angels army O.o Or genestealers, a broodlord, tyranid warriors (and a Carnifex) Likewise for Stormclaw, great models, crappy mix for a starter box.
Dark Vengeance, though, is a great starter box IMO.
IMO, 40k and WHFB had some GREAT starter boxes. For example, the Eldar box was a good value, and Necron box is terrific value. I have no idea if the FB models were good, but you sure got a lot of them in a box. The problem, of course, is that the complete army is 7x the size of the starter box I suspect that there will be starter boxes like these at some point for Sigmar, and they'll be more meaningful because you won't need to buy $700 of stuff on top of the starter for a normal-sized army.
As long as you want to play CSM or DA, or your friend wants to play one and you play the other, sure.
If you don't feel the need to buy the codex(es) so you can add to the forces in the box, fine.
There's plenty of good to say about DV, but as a "starter" it's flawed. That's not all down to the set, some of it is a consequence of the way GW has structured the necessary purchases, but flawed nonetheless.
I'm not a WM player - although I will be if they ever release a faction whose aesthetic appeals - but a faction starter that only requires me to find an opponent is definitely the way to go. Heck, you can get two for approximately the cost of DV.
With GW, if you don't want one of the starter factions, then the box becomes dramatically more expensive, and the alternative is pricey too (if I wanted to start Tau, for instance.)
@Az - you posted that right after I made the edit with the coment on the other starter boxes
No matter how you cut it, 40k is a USD $750-$1,000 game to be properly "in it". I think anyone expecting otherwise is just going to be disappointed.
Starter box or no, 1500-2000 points is pretty average, with many games going up to 3000 points. I'll exclude BRB, because everyone can get this cheap now. Even so, there are models, at least 1 codex, paint, supplies, carrying cases, do-dads, and some variation in your battle force so that you're not playing the same thing every time, and so that you can "go with the flow" when the meta shifts.
And it takes a long time to build and paint all those models, too.
I don't think this is a negative; it's just what it is: a game where players have normalized on a lot of models, and also on BIG models (vehicles, titans, etc).
Other than the people who quit 40k after trying out DV, I don't know anyone who's stopped at DV models. If you want Tau or Necron, they have decent starter boxes, by the way, where you get a cut off the total price of the pretty useful models. Ironically, the only faction with crappy starter box now is Space Marines, lol. The value couldn't possibly get worse than a SM or BA starter box...
Talys wrote: The value couldn't possibly get worse than a SM or BA starter box...
What makes you think they're going to stop at marines though?
The eldar battleforce currently saves you $36 off of the MSRP of each unit individually. Not bad, but not as great as it used to be.
The Windrider battlehost only saves you $20... Woo.... :/
Oh wow, the Eldar Wraithhost box only saves me ~$1... Again, not a savings, it's just a bundle...
GW's box deals haven't been "deals" in quite a while. The only good boxes they've managed to release with decent value are DV, Deathstorm, and Stormclaw.
They're not starter boxes, some of the, aren't even a standard Force Org, and they're offered at nothing like the discount of DV and don't include any rules at all. Plus you don't get to exclude the BRB, reduced cost or no, as it is still a vital expense (plus "I can get it on eBay cheap" doesn't count in these discussions, as it applies equally to almost all other equivalents, RRP or go home.)
40K's weakness in comparison to other games is that thanks to the slightly unintelligent approach of cutting points cost to drive model sales, it requires a much greater investment to get typical army size, more models means more painting time (and greater chance for disillusionment - you might like it, not everyone else does) and, for whatever reason, it has always seemed less acceptable within the culture to play a below-standard size game.
These are all things that don't affect the competition, either as badly or at all.
On top of all that, if you make it over all those hurdles, the game ain't that great other than as some sort of pseudo RPG, and you can bet that isn't how it's pitched in a lot of the stores.
Charge over the odds for a substandard product and you will get cushy out eventually - as I fear is the fate of AoS.
The problem with pricing is that it's not going to be evenly distributed. 5 models for $45 or $50 is high when compared to the starter box. What if you don't want one of those armies? There isn't an alternative discount, entry source for new players. I'm not a huge fan of PP but one thing that they do right, in my opinion, is offer a discounted starter for every force in their games, this helps remove the barrier to entry for new players and a reasonable starting point for building armies. GW does this but always with limited releases and not in a coherent, comprehensive manner which is a missed opportunity in my mind.
The current starter boxes that PP has are FAR superior to the old starter boxes. They are a great value! Still, if you want to play a 50 pt game, or be "competitive" with what people play, you're going to be buying some extra models.
I am guessing that as GW moves along, they're going to make more starter boxes for different factions; at the moment, a lot of the factions don't really have the right models/distribution for AoS anyhow. Keep in mind that the two "campaign" boxes, Deathstorm and Stormclaw, are a fantastic value for models, but terrible starter boxes -- like, who wants tactical terminators, a Furioso, Death Company and a Terminator Captain... as the start of their blood angels army O.o Or genestealers, a broodlord, tyranid warriors (and a Carnifex) Likewise for Stormclaw, great models, crappy mix for a starter box.
Dark Vengeance, though, is a great starter box IMO.
IMO, 40k and WHFB had some GREAT starter boxes. For example, the Eldar box was a good value, and Necron box is terrific value. I have no idea if the FB models were good, but you sure got a lot of them in a box. The problem, of course, is that the complete army is 7x the size of the starter box I suspect that there will be starter boxes like these at some point for Sigmar, and they'll be more meaningful because you won't need to buy $700 of stuff on top of the starter for a normal-sized army.
Don't get me wrong, GW makes some strong starters but they are hardly ever playable forces right out of the box and more often than not are limited edition instead of being a set SKU which is what PP does. I think GW is doing themselves a disservice in this regard because playable starters do three things for new players; (1) they provide a new player with a playable, rules legal force that they can put together and start playing games with, (2) they offer a discount of some sort that reduces the barrier for entry and (3) they provide a stable platform from which to build your collection further.
PP has this figured out and I believe its one of the reasons they're growing. FF has this figured out with XWing and their other games as well. Nobody will argue, I think, that these are intended to be single purchases, thus "starter", but they serve a valid marketing purpose that has proven in multiple industries to be successful (new printers being cheaper than the ink, razors being cheaper than the blade refills, etc.)
GW did have a marine starter force recently (strike force ultra or somesuch?) that had a rhino, a squad and a captain. That was a legal, low-point force from which people could build their collections, but I think it was limited edition so if you want to start a marine force later, tough luck and it was only one faction. What's needed is for this to exist for all factions and be a permanent sales fixture to aid recruitment of new blood. For AoS, they need to take the concept that already exists on ebay, break the starter into factions and charge $50 for that faction; this would be a great starter at a very reasonable price and doesn't saddle you with units from an army that you're not necessarily interested in buying/trading off/ or posting on ebay.
@Az - Well, I don't think anyone who asks around will or should invest in 40k if they're not prepared to have a 70+ model army (or a specialized army with a bunch of big, expensive robots, etc.). If they don't do at least that little bit of research (or ask store staff...) it's kinda their tough luck
But there aren't many games that encourage really big armies with infantry, "planes, trains, and automobiles" so to speak, certainly not in the non-historical world, so it 40k just fills a niche. I mean, all you gotta do is look at a wall of GW product for a faction and ask, "do I want to buy a whole bunch of those boxes?" ... bad math bad math bad math... calculator... "ZOMG that's a month's rent... F* THAT!"
Or look at someone playing it and crap your pants wondering how you'll paint all those models in the next year
Yeah, I totally get that 40k or the old WHFB is either unattractive or the wrong game for a lot of peeps -- for the same reasons, the folks who like it do.
@agnosto - I think GW should have more & better starter sets / discount bundles, too. I think it would help them immensely for AoS.
By the way, I'm not positive that is PP is still growing at similar rates as before. I've heard grumblings (from store owners) that WMH sales aren't as exciting as they used to be, and some of the stores aren't stocking as much of the battle boxes -- though one of the reasons is that they can get them in really quickly special order if someone wants one.
XWing seems to be zipping right along, with a big part of the attraction being that you're buying game pieces, not models -- and the game is good.
The current Space Marine starter box has a tactical, a captain, and a dreadnought. Which wouldn't suck if the dreadnoughts were better :( Or if the captain wasn't really easy to kitbash. I totally agree that $50 is a great price point (though PP has gone closer to $100 MSRP for their new, beefier starters).
An ideal starter kit in my mind would be 5 or 10 troops, 1 transport, and 1 captain-type for USD $50 for each faction. I think that would be a great seller. It's not even that crazy a price -- they had the Dark Eldar kits that had a Raider + 10 Kabalites, or a Raider + 10 wyches, for less than that, and you can make yourself a kitbash Succubus or Archon.
Talys wrote: An ideal starter kit in my mind would be 5 or 10 troops, 1 transport, and 1 captain-type for USD $50 for each faction. I think that would be a great seller. It's not even that crazy a price -- they had the Dark Eldar kits that had a Raider + 10 Kabalites, or a Raider + 10 wyches, for less than that, and you can make yourself a kitbash Succubus or Archon.
We're thinking the same here; a small force like that at a similar price-point, include something like kill-team rules and I think they'd have a winning beginners set-up. They could even make additional bit bigger sets at around the $75 to $100 mark for people that want a bit more like the bigger PP battle boxes.
Talys wrote: An ideal starter kit in my mind would be 5 or 10 troops, 1 transport, and 1 captain-type for USD $50 for each faction. I think that would be a great seller. It's not even that crazy a price -- they had the Dark Eldar kits that had a Raider + 10 Kabalites, or a Raider + 10 wyches, for less than that, and you can make yourself a kitbash Succubus or Archon.
We're thinking the same here; a small force like that at a similar price-point, include something like kill-team rules and I think they'd have a winning beginners set-up. They could even make additional bit bigger sets at around the $75 to $100 mark for people that want a bit more like the bigger PP battle boxes.
Another idea: start with $50 "Battleforce" sets with the miniatures mentioned above - small HQ unit, 10 strong Troops squad, and a single Transport. Then $50 - $75 "Reinforcement" set with the second (and different, if possible) Troops choice, another infantry unit (Elite/Heavy/Fast Attack) and a second vehicle.
I enjoy how civil this conversation has been the last few pages. I go down to the AOS general discussion and there's a frothing mob of new posters insulting down anyone who dares not speak entirely positive of GW.
By comparison, this conversation between all parties- Talys, Az, agnosto et. al- is like an enjoyable talk between pints at the bar.
Accolade wrote: I enjoy how civil this conversation has been the last few pages. I go down to the AOS general discussion and there's a frothing mob of new posters insulting down anyone who dares not speak entirely positive of GW.
By comparison, this conversation between all parties- Talys, Az, agnosto et. al- is like an enjoyable talk between pints at the bar.
If only. I could use a good pint or three.
I think likely we're more "seasoned" hobbyists and so can agree to disagree on things we don't necessarily see eye-to-eye on. Besides, as long as people aren't tossing insults at each other, it's easier to have a mature conversation. Some people get entirely too emotionally wrapped up in their toy-soldiers.
Accolade wrote: Fair enough, Blacksails. I swear to buy you an actual pint should you frequent Gen Con in the next two years, I think I owe you that much!
(I know some good places in Indy)
All I know about all these cons is that they're too far away. East coast Canuckistan isn't half as exciting as east coast Murica.
But fine, I guess I'll buy you a beer too if we ever meet. Only this one time though.
I am guessing that as GW moves along, they're going to make more starter boxes for different factions; at the moment, a lot of the factions don't really have the right models/distribution for AoS anyhow. Keep in mind that the two "campaign" boxes, Deathstorm and Stormclaw, are a fantastic value for models, but terrible starter boxes
I agree, I can see a lot of proscribed campaign boxes coming with mini's included in the standard X Vs Y format. Hopefully if one comes out where I like X, I'll find someone to flog Y to.
Haldir wrote: Gentlemen , something is wrong here if we're mentioning gun control , environmental issues and toy soldiers...... I didn't mean to offend anyone , but I do feel the anti GW rankings are a bit overboard. But hey everyone is entitled to express themselves and how they feel. No offense was meant. But hey if you are unhappy why are you venting here ? I sent a whole page email to GW lambasting how in a matter of days people here can design a better points system than their whole staff! Everyone unhappy should do the same!
Do you know what "Identity Politics" is/are?
Identity Politics is essentially the claim that unless you belong to an Identity Group (ethnic, manual/physical laborer, clock-maker, cobbler/shoe-repairer, accountant, redhead, . . . , gamer - with the sub-groups: miniatures gamer, fantasy gamer, WHFB gamer, WHFB 2nd, 3rd, etc. ed. gamer, Sci-Fi gamer,WH40K gamer, Board gamer, etc. . .; and so on.....) then your opinion about that identity group is invalid, and you are not allowed an opinion.
Of course, this is the very worst of Authoritarian, Anti-Enlightenment, Social Justice Warrior, Leftist, Anti-Progressive idiocy in 99.999% of all cases (there are some identities where membership tends to make one's opinion more valid than one who does not belong to that identity group, but these demographics are extremely rare - for instance, Holocaust Survivors from Death Camps in Nazi Germany. But even in these cases it does not make outsiders to that group's opinions, or analysis invalid, only lacking in a context that makes the group members opinions, when informed, that much more valid).
Now, why is this seemingly fraught topic connected with the criticism/critique of GW?
Because membership in the group of GW gamers, who like their products does not carry with it an experience and identity that is so exclusive as to exclude or invalidate the opinions of those not of this group.
Some, many in fact, of the people I see critiquing GW are doing so in the same fashion that one would se a Critique in a Fine Arts class, where the critique is a Positive/Constructive Critique (aimed at improving the subject of the critique), rather than a Negative/Destructive/Eliminativist Critique (aimed at destroying, eliminating, or removing the subject of critique from the world/existence).
The title of this thread does seem to indicate that the goal is eliminativist, but it can be the case that a creative work is so far gone that it might be best if it were just disposed of and a new work began from a blank slate. This latter seems to be more what the OP is suggesting:
• That GW's efforts with WHFB have become so muddied, confused, with rips and tears on the canvas where portions of the work have been repetitively erased, or overpainted, with smeared line and color, and the texture of the canvas showing through failed and twisted prior attempts, some of which worked, yet were abandoned for mysterious and inscrutable reasons, that a continued attempt to complete the work is doomed given the stated goals and intentions (The Intentions will never achieve the desired consequences/results).
I, for instance, would dearly love to see the Old Warhammer world (with Araby, Kislevites, and other more colorful Armies still produced). And I miss the original Viking Dwarves, and the 40K Squats.
However, that is just my personal opinion.
But, just looking at hard, objective facts, GW does not look to be having what you would call "success" with their constant changes.
It is alienating customers, as indicating by each year showing declining sales, and having to take out loans to pay dividends (which is, in most businesses a bad sign).
The Aesthetics of what they produce are mostly irrelevant, unless those aesthetics are just wholly unappealing to everyone.
What MOST here seem to be critiquing is that GW has been failing more and more to provide what the customer base wishes to buy, with a smaller and smaller fan base, and a company ethic that shows an obvious disdain for their customer base.
Haldir wrote: Gentlemen , something is wrong here if we're mentioning gun control , environmental issues and toy soldiers...... I didn't mean to offend anyone , but I do feel the anti GW rankings are a bit overboard. But hey everyone is entitled to express themselves and how they feel. No offense was meant. But hey if you are unhappy why are you venting here ? I sent a whole page email to GW lambasting how in a matter of days people here can design a better points system than their whole staff! Everyone unhappy should do the same!
Oh! And I hope that the Homage to Haldir is out of a love for Tolkien's works (I am going to guess that it is after Haldir, the Teleri Silvan elf of Lórien, and not Haldir of the Haladin, of the Edain of Brethil in the First Age).
As you may soon learn, I am a huge Tolkien nerd (and a bit of a cantankerous purist in that regard). Tolkien remains my favorite author (even though I now recognize his many, many very deep flaws - I have gone to Oxford and Marquette to visit his libraries in the past to read many of the unpublished materials related to Middle-earth, as well as his theological, and philological works, which are closely related to Middle-earth, and discovered that he was a pretty strange character who would have been very difficult to communicate with - as indeed many of his associates, who were young when he was at Oxford, related).
It is a pity that Haldir's role in the films could not have been portrayed more accurately, as there was plenty of action he took part in on the North marches of Lothlórien, with the destruction of the Moria Orcs and Goblins who had pursued the fellowship into the fences of Lórien, and then later with its defense against the attacks from Dol Guldur on March 11th, 15th, and 22nd, and then he commanded a company during the final assault of Dol Guldur on March 28th, where Galadriel pulled a Lúthien, and caused the tower to collapse through the exertion of her power (at one point, sad to have been through a song of power, as Lúthien had done, but I think Tolkien wanted to show a differentiation between the two, with Galadriel being more "martial" in her power than was Lúthien, whose power arose more through innocence).
But.... Nice to see homages to Tolkien.....
Which is yet another area where GW have dropped the ball, not once, but twice, in having the license to produce LotR miniatures, yet not supporting the line.
BeAfraid wrote: BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH LOOK AT ME I'M A TEENAGER WHO KNOWS BIG WORDS AND WORSHIPS RONALD REAGAN BECAUSE I'M TOO YOUNG TO KNOW WHAT LIVING UNDER REAGAN WAS LIKE BLAH BLAH BLAH PLEASE EXTERMINATE ME, I DO NOT DESERVE LIFE.
I worked for Reagan, under John Tower and Charlie Wilson. I used to have a photo of me and Reagan from the 1984 GOP Convention in Dallas, Texas, where the friend who got me the job with Tower (he worked for Tower's Campaign, and then later as a member of his Staff on Intelligence Issues)
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haldir wrote: Yes agreed , but expressing your displeasure could be better served by emailing. GW directly. The more emails they receive the better. Right?
The sentiment is correct, but the means probably less so.
Many companies show a neglect of email responses or criticisms. They respond more directly to snail-mail. I imagine if all of those who were unhappy with GW wrote a physical letter to them, that they might alter their behavior, or goals a bit.
But, this post shows what is being sought for on this thread:
• Possible actions that might be constructive in seeing GW be more attentive to its customers.
Which is, I think, more why people are complaining: They feel neglected.
Haldir wrote: Gentlemen , something is wrong here if we're mentioning gun control , environmental issues and toy soldiers...... I didn't mean to offend anyone , but I do feel the anti GW rankings are a bit overboard. But hey everyone is entitled to express themselves and how they feel. No offense was meant. But hey if you are unhappy why are you venting here ? I sent a whole page email to GW lambasting how in a matter of days people here can design a better points system than their whole staff! Everyone unhappy should do the same!
Do you know what "Identity Politics" is/are?
Soooo.....you decided this thread would be made more civil and on-topic if you bought up this particular tangent, five days after it was first posted? Bwuh?
Ritalin and Morphine, personally (They are prescribed - I got a little blown up - well, and the Ritalin is for a combination of ADD and Depression).
But it is a great combination is the dosage of each is doubled.
If drugs were legalized, what is now cocaine would become much closer to Ritalin as a commercial product (although probably as a liquid nasal delivery - still snorted, but manufactured specifically for nasal use).
And what is now called "Speed"/Amphetamines/Methamphetamine, would revert to being a Methamphetamine Sulfate, or a Dextroamphetamine Hydrochloride, as both are MASSIVELY less damaging than the Methamphetamine analogs (Ice) that is now produced from Pseudoephedrine (usually as 4-MAR, rather than Methamphetamine).
But... anyway... Yeah... not everyone "drinks" (alcohol).
Haldir wrote: Gentlemen , something is wrong here if we're mentioning gun control , environmental issues and toy soldiers...... I didn't mean to offend anyone , but I do feel the anti GW rankings are a bit overboard. But hey everyone is entitled to express themselves and how they feel. No offense was meant. But hey if you are unhappy why are you venting here ? I sent a whole page email to GW lambasting how in a matter of days people here can design a better points system than their whole staff! Everyone unhappy should do the same!
Do you know what "Identity Politics" is/are?
Soooo.....you decided this thread would be made more civil and on-topic if you bought up this particular tangent, five days after it was first posted? Bwuh?
It was relevant.
And I have been working for the last week, since I finally got back to my computer.
The concept tends to spread into other domains than simply politics, or "social issues."
It exists as a Folk Psychology concept as well, which is where it originally arose from (tragically, at that - as it is one messed up ideology).
Ritalin and Morphine, personally (They are prescribed - I got a little blown up - well, and the Ritalin is for a combination of ADD and Depression).
But it is a great combination is the dosage of each is doubled.
If drugs were legalized, what is now cocaine would become much closer to Ritalin as a commercial product (although probably as a liquid nasal delivery - still snorted, but manufactured specifically for nasal use).
And what is now called "Speed"/Amphetamines/Methamphetamine, would revert to being a Methamphetamine Sulfate, or a Dextroamphetamine Hydrochloride, as both are MASSIVELY less damaging than the Methamphetamine analogs (Ice) that is now produced from Pseudoephedrine (usually as 4-MAR, rather than Methamphetamine).
But... anyway... Yeah... not everyone "drinks" (alcohol).
Haldir wrote: Gentlemen , something is wrong here if we're mentioning gun control , environmental issues and toy soldiers...... I didn't mean to offend anyone , but I do feel the anti GW rankings are a bit overboard. But hey everyone is entitled to express themselves and how they feel. No offense was meant. But hey if you are unhappy why are you venting here ? I sent a whole page email to GW lambasting how in a matter of days people here can design a better points system than their whole staff! Everyone unhappy should do the same!
Do you know what "Identity Politics" is/are?
Soooo.....you decided this thread would be made more civil and on-topic if you bought up this particular tangent, five days after it was first posted? Bwuh?
It was relevant.
And I have been working for the last week, since I finally got back to my computer.
The concept tends to spread into other domains than simply politics, or "social issues."
It exists as a Folk Psychology concept as well, which is where it originally arose from (tragically, at that - as it is one messed up ideology).
MB
It seemed reasonably argued to me - and I had much the same observation with D&D 4th edition.
Another phrase that can be used is 'disenfranchisement'. - where people feel that their opinions are not weighted properly or are being ignored, while other opinions have their weight artificially increased.
The Auld Grump
*EDIT* It may be worth noting that 5th edition D&D was and is an active attempt to correct the social problems created with 4th edition.
I do not much like 5th edition - but it is a move toward bringing back players that were alienated by the way 4th edition was handled (much more than the rules for 4th edition itself).
As a result, D&D has regained the position of top selling RPG.
Guildsman wrote: I used to not care. Now, I'm feeling kind of sad, because I very much expect Age of Sigmarines to fail. And if AoS fails, GW as a whole won't be far behind.
If GW goes down, Warhammer in all its forms goes with it. D&D went through a similar crisis, and only barely survived, despite being a household name. If D&D can come so close to failure, Warhammer is doomed.
Ahaha no.
The success or failure of GW rested solely on 40K. With AoS with their limited releases and digital halfassed rules they aren't taking much in the way of risk. New armies/model releases will only be a few core sets with the rest very limited and only what they know will sell. GW won't suffer fianancially from this because they're putting minimal chips on the table to begin with.
Its classic downsizing, straight out an executive boardroom. .
Guildsman wrote: I used to not care. Now, I'm feeling kind of sad, because I very much expect Age of Sigmarines to fail. And if AoS fails, GW as a whole won't be far behind.
If GW goes down, Warhammer in all its forms goes with it. D&D went through a similar crisis, and only barely survived, despite being a household name. If D&D can come so close to failure, Warhammer is doomed.
Ahaha no.
The success or failure of GW rested solely on 40K. With AoS with their limited releases and digital halfassed rules they aren't taking much in the way of risk. New armies/model releases will only be a few core sets with the rest very limited and only what they know will sell. GW won't suffer fianancially from this because they're putting minimal chips on the table to begin with.
Its classic downsizing, straight out an executive boardroom. .
GW pretty much has all its eggs in one basket and has for quiet sometime now.
Guildsman wrote: I used to not care. Now, I'm feeling kind of sad, because I very much expect Age of Sigmarines to fail. And if AoS fails, GW as a whole won't be far behind.
If GW goes down, Warhammer in all its forms goes with it. D&D went through a similar crisis, and only barely survived, despite being a household name. If D&D can come so close to failure, Warhammer is doomed.
Ahaha no.
The success or failure of GW rested solely on 40K. With AoS with their limited releases and digital halfassed rules they aren't taking much in the way of risk. New armies/model releases will only be a few core sets with the rest very limited and only what they know will sell. GW won't suffer fianancially from this because they're putting minimal chips on the table to begin with.
Its classic downsizing, straight out an executive boardroom. .
GW pretty much has all its eggs in one basket and has for quiet sometime now.
I'm still not so sure. Despite the god-awful, no effort rules, they've still obviously sunk a ton into this "game" in development costs. Sculpting, steel molds for the models, art, background material. All of that stuff adds up. Sure, they've cut costs, especially with the Sigmarines, but not that much. A small corporation like GW can't afford for a major product launch like this to fail, or even only break even.
Guildsman wrote: I used to not care. Now, I'm feeling kind of sad, because I very much expect Age of Sigmarines to fail. And if AoS fails, GW as a whole won't be far behind.
If GW goes down, Warhammer in all its forms goes with it. D&D went through a similar crisis, and only barely survived, despite being a household name. If D&D can come so close to failure, Warhammer is doomed.
Ahaha no.
The success or failure of GW rested solely on 40K. With AoS with their limited releases and digital halfassed rules they aren't taking much in the way of risk. New armies/model releases will only be a few core sets with the rest very limited and only what they know will sell. GW won't suffer fianancially from this because they're putting minimal chips on the table to begin with.
Its classic downsizing, straight out an executive boardroom. .
GW pretty much has all its eggs in one basket and has for quiet sometime now.
I'm still not so sure. Despite the god-awful, no effort rules, they've still obviously sunk a ton into this "game" in development costs. Sculpting, steel molds for the models, art, background material. All of that stuff adds up. Sure, they've cut costs, especially with the Sigmarines, but not that much. A small corporation like GW can't afford for a major product launch like this to fail, or even only break even.
But 40k made some 88% of their profits, which are only slowly declining.
There's no real playtesting anymore as theres no points costs. No need for balance means rules can be unashamedly designed to shift product. Limited releases and digital only rules will cut down on shipping costs and chance of product stagnating. The three core regiments and new limited updates depending on profits is much less risk than launching new editions of WHFB. They look at the savings they can make long term. AoS allows a child to buy one squad of sigmarines and play a game without needing to make an army list or buy an expensive rulebook. On top of this, the move has been made from Warhammer to Superhero-hammer in terms of design. Large bulky demigods against overmuscled bare chested khornates, both wielding oversized "extreme" weapons. Push wish fulfillment an sell toy soldiers to kids is their mantra. Forget subtlety.
Guildsman wrote: I used to not care. Now, I'm feeling kind of sad, because I very much expect Age of Sigmarines to fail. And if AoS fails, GW as a whole won't be far behind.
If GW goes down, Warhammer in all its forms goes with it. D&D went through a similar crisis, and only barely survived, despite being a household name. If D&D can come so close to failure, Warhammer is doomed.
Ahaha no.
The success or failure of GW rested solely on 40K. With AoS with their limited releases and digital halfassed rules they aren't taking much in the way of risk. New armies/model releases will only be a few core sets with the rest very limited and only what they know will sell. GW won't suffer fianancially from this because they're putting minimal chips on the table to begin with.
Its classic downsizing, straight out an executive boardroom. .
GW pretty much has all its eggs in one basket and has for quiet sometime now.
I'm still not so sure. Despite the god-awful, no effort rules, they've still obviously sunk a ton into this "game" in development costs. Sculpting, steel molds for the models, art, background material. All of that stuff adds up. Sure, they've cut costs, especially with the Sigmarines, but not that much. A small corporation like GW can't afford for a major product launch like this to fail, or even only break even.
But 40k made some 88% of their profits, which are only slowly declining.
There's no real playtesting anymore as theres no points costs. No need for balance means rules can be unashamedly designed to shift product. Limited releases and digital only rules will cut down on shipping costs and chance of product stagnating. The three core regiments and new limited updates depending on profits is much less risk than launching new editions of WHFB. They look at the savings they can make long term. AoS allows a child to buy one squad of sigmarines and play a game without needing to make an army list or buy an expensive rulebook. On top of this, the move has been made from Warhammer to Superhero-hammer in terms of design. Large bulky demigods against overmuscled bare chested khornates, both wielding oversized "extreme" weapons. Push wish fulfillment an sell toy soldiers to kids is their mantra. Forget subtlety.
Maybe you're right. Maybe my feeling is wishful thinking more than anything else.
Either way, it's crap. They're doubling down on all of the worst aspects of their games, going for "EXTREME" over quality and depth. Third-rate, comic book level writing married to third-rate, comic book level aesthetics.
You're forgetting too, there's going to be a large investment with the new factions and armies. I fully expect them to release new models for everything and phase the old stuff out. (The end times models actually currently fit the new asthetic, so they'd be safe)
Remember, they added this whole faction of merc dwarves named "Fireslayers" right? We're bound to see them in model form soon. AoS is going to be taking up a *lot* of resources to churn out new models/factions. I don't think they'd waste time blowing up the old world just to keep *everything* looking the same, obviously there's going to be a lot of new stuff incoming.
If AoS fails, then GW has virtually wasted those resources, unless the models appeal to the conversion crowds who buy fantasy stuff for 40K, then if AoS players don't buy into them, and they sit on shelves, then truly GW will be up a creek without a paddle, they need to put more thought into a balanced, structured ruleset so people don't lose interest. Dumping all your toys on the table and rolling dice in a big combat phase is fun, for like, 30 seconds. but there needs to be more behind the game to get people to keep playing.
PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote: You're forgetting too, there's going to be a large investment with the new factions and armies. I fully expect them to release new models for everything and phase the old stuff out. (The end times models actually currently fit the new asthetic, so they'd be safe)
Remember, they added this whole faction of merc dwarves named "Fireslayers" right? We're bound to see them in model form soon. AoS is going to be taking up a *lot* of resources to churn out new models/factions. I don't think they'd waste time blowing up the old world just to keep *everything* looking the same, obviously there's going to be a lot of new stuff incoming.
If AoS fails, then GW has virtually wasted those resources, unless the models appeal to the conversion crowds who buy fantasy stuff for 40K, then if AoS players don't buy into them, and they sit on shelves, then truly GW will be up a creek without a paddle, they need to put more thought into a balanced, structured ruleset so people don't lose interest. Dumping all your toys on the table and rolling dice in a big combat phase is fun, for like, 30 seconds. but there needs to be more behind the game to get people to keep playing.
Well look at Sigmarines, and we all know GW will give them the most attention. They have two characters, flying sigs, archers and normal ones. Thats it. Other armies will follow this example so at any given time the entire rage of AoS all the armies put together, will be as big as maybe two armies from WHFB. This smaller range makes it easier to hit sales targets.Thet limited nature of new releases beyond the core, puts more pressure on the consumer to get it now. As for rules, I was told by the guy in front of the studio sigmarine display that they are trying to not focus on rules so much as they want to relese DnD style questing narratives/campaigns. They don't want it to be about win or lose but about both players getting together to tell a story basically. It's about making kids feel like hulking heroes, not about knowing rules or strategy or victory anymore.will that business model fail? It could, but I doubt it. Fail enough to run the entirety of GW out of business? Not a chance.
Video game franchises have been being watered down and simplified with some success in recent years, maybe there is a market for this sort of thing in wargaming too, I think there might well be.
Rayvon wrote: Video game franchises have been being watered down and simplified with some success in recent years, maybe there is a market for this sort of thing in wargaming too, I think there might well be.
Well as AoS whole marketing concept seems to follow the free App pay-for-content design. GW does seem to be following the Vedio Game Company path.
And I immediately have to give GW some credit here as pics of the Plastic HH sprues have come out. Gotta say, they know how to please me...
Wait a minute... Now I don't need the Khorne half of the AOS starter, because I can just get some HH Marines and make Khorne Berserkers that way... All I'd need to do is give them chain-axes, and paint them In WE colors.
Talys wrote: The value couldn't possibly get worse than a SM or BA starter box...
What makes you think they're going to stop at marines though?
The eldar battleforce currently saves you $36 off of the MSRP of each unit individually. Not bad, but not as great as it used to be.
The Windrider battlehost only saves you $20... Woo.... :/
Oh wow, the Eldar Wraithhost box only saves me ~$1... Again, not a savings, it's just a bundle...
GW's box deals haven't been "deals" in quite a while. The only good boxes they've managed to release with decent value are DV, Deathstorm, and Stormclaw.
Yes, this so much. Back in 2nd edition their 'Armies in a box' where fantastic deals.
3rd + 4th Edition starter boxes where still deals. 5th I believe is when they started taking models out of the box and kept raising the price. After that meh.
Yeah... got 3 of the ~200€ armyboxes (Orks, Ogres and Space marines) when they got released. I think they even had the armybook/codex included which was super nice.
) then suggest that they are going to arbitrarily piss the money up the wall without a thought for the consequences. G do have issues with falling turnover but not terminally so.
hats off.
Meaningless! And I think that's what'll finally dawn on a lot of gamers with 
