Boss Salvage wrote: I may be the most active public player of AOS out here, and I play pretty infrequently and heavily rely upon comp packs when I do
If the LGS is your scene, that is entirely understandable. I think a lot of the frustration about AoS stems from GW not adequately qualifying their customers, or at least that is the phrase I learned from my friend who actually has sales training. The point is, you need to market to the people most likely to get on board. And pick-up gamers with any sense are going to quickly discover that AoS is not a pick-up game, even with points tacked on as an afterthought (albeit an afterthought into which a lot of effort has been poured).
ImAGeek wrote: They don't. I've just discovered Guild Ball for example - no points at all, you just take 6 team members, one has to be a captain and one a mascot.
D'ya maybe want to read his post again:
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk)...
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk) and people are STILL defending AoS' lack of any balance.
Dat GW Stockholm Syndrome. So glad the new management is ignoring these people.
They don't. I've just discovered Guild Ball for example - no points at all, you just take 6 team members, one has to be a captain and one a mascot.
so there is a stucture, in AoS one guy could take 9 guys 3 captians and 6 mascots because...reasons.
Indeed, the Guildball points system is just very simple: A (Captain) + B (Mascot) + 4xC (Player), with some structure around factions.
Guildball would have been DOA if you could bring 27 Captains to a game
ImAGeek wrote: They don't. I've just discovered Guild Ball for example - no points at all, you just take 6 team members, one has to be a captain and one a mascot.
D'ya maybe want to read his post again:
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk)...
Manchu wrote: AoS is not a pick-up game, even with points tacked on as an afterthought (albeit an afterthought into which a lot of effort has been poured).
We've been over how you don't have evidence for this. It may not have been designed as such, but there's nothing to say that it can't be a pick-up game when points are added. I'm a bit bugged that you criticize me for making claims then go on making your own in the same manner.
[edit] And from the onset, "points" is shorthand for "the system they implement which includes points" and thus whatever force-org equivalent they include along with that.
Manchu wrote: AoS is not a pick-up game, even with points tacked on as an afterthought (albeit an afterthought into which a lot of effort has been poured).
We've been over how you don't have evidence for this. It may not have been designed as such, but there's nothing to say that it can't be a pick-up game when points are added. 'm a bit bugged that you criticize me for making claims then go on making your own in the same manner.
Once again - claims and arguments are different things. Claims are supported by evidence. Arguments are supported by reason as well as claims. I am making an argument: points alone are insufficient to balance AoS because there is no basis for balancing AoS given balance was never the goal of its design. I have even explained this to you from the opposite perspective: games that do use points use them as part of a larger design framework intended to foster balance, which incorporates and defines associated mechanics, such as force organization, task resolution, and how modifiers work.
NinthMusketeer wrote: And from the onset, "points" is shorthand for "the system they implement which includes points" and thus whatever force-org equivalent they include along with that.
I'll accept you moving the goal posts like that - but you've made a huge leap from just "adding points" to making some very substantial changes to the basic design parameters of the game. Adding a force org chart is one thing. But it doesn't matter if you don't have (at least mostly) level probabilities. And so on.
You keep assuming that AoS is a pick-up game that just needs to be fixed.
Manchu wrote: AoS is not a pick-up game, even with points tacked on as an afterthought (albeit an afterthought into which a lot of effort has been poured).
We've been over how you don't have evidence for this. It may not have been designed as such, but there's nothing to say that it can't be a pick-up game when points are added. 'm a bit bugged that you criticize me for making claims then go on making your own in the same manner.
Once again - claims and arguments are different things. Claims are supported by evidence. Arguments are supported by explanations. I am making an argument: points alone are insufficient to balance AoS because there is no basis for balancing AoS given balance was never the goal of its design. I have even explained this to you from the opposite perspective: games that do use points use them as part of a larger design framework intended to foster balance, which incorporates and defines associated mechanics, such as force organization, task resolution, and how modifiers work.
We don't know that there won't be more rules for things such as force selection/organisation in the points based version though.
I think it's also relevant that the SCGT had such a great turnout - seemingly, the game works really well with their packet! Salvage is the only one I've seen mention that they've given it a go using the SCGT system, but once more folks have tried it (which will surely happen once GW is promoting it!) maybe it will turn out great
At the very least it's generating tons of interest - and if only a fraction of those turn into converts, that would still be a huge boost to the game.
Edit: Copying over the post with links to the new page
RiTides wrote:Points are just part of it - hopefully the SCGT guys did their homework! Has anyone played in one of their events / tried their system and can give an account?
It's the only way I've played my last few games of AOS. GeeDub really could not have endorsed a better comp pack / balancing system, SCGT has been quite enjoyable. (And of course the Dub couldn't really have balanced this thing themselves, even the new Dub that listens to its community from time to time So all the smarter the decision to invest in the folks most dedicated to bridging Oldhammer with Nü.)
Manchu wrote:You would be best served not to, unless there is a lot more to it than simply adding points.
I'd recommend having a look at the rest of the SCGT pack as well, not just the army balancing bit. Not as many house rulings as you'd expect, and the ones made are decent. Good scoring schemes too, balance of scenario and killing, etc, etc.
ImAGeek wrote: We don't know that there won't be more rules for things such as force selection/organisation in the points based version though.
Correct - and the more changes made for Match Play the worse it becomes for Open/Narrative Play based on the principle of gamer expectations we discussed earlier. But keep in mind that the argument has heretofore been about points alone. I mean, just imagine trying to "fix" 40k and the only tool in your toolbox is the ability to change how many points any given option costs. Have fun getting feedback on your changes ...
Manchu wrote: AoS is not a pick-up game, even with points tacked on as an afterthought (albeit an afterthought into which a lot of effort has been poured).
We've been over how you don't have evidence for this. It may not have been designed as such, but there's nothing to say that it can't be a pick-up game when points are added. 'm a bit bugged that you criticize me for making claims then go on making your own in the same manner.
Once again - claims and arguments are different things. Claims are supported by evidence. Arguments are supported by reason as well as claims. I am making an argument: points alone are insufficient to balance AoS because there is no basis for balancing AoS given balance was never the goal of its design. I have even explained this to you from the opposite perspective: games that do use points use them as part of a larger design framework intended to foster balance, which incorporates and defines associated mechanics, such as force organization, task resolution, and how modifiers work.
NinthMusketeer wrote: And from the onset, "points" is shorthand for "the system they implement which includes points" and thus whatever force-org equivalent they include along with that.
I'll accept you moving the goal posts like that - but you've made a huge leap from just "adding points" to making some very substantial changes to the basic design parameters of the game. Adding a force org chart is one thing. But it doesn't matter if (at least mostly) level probabilities. And so on.
You keep assuming that AoS is a pick-up game that just needs to be fixed.
To quote Games Workshop "this means points and all" I added that because I didn't realize until a few posts ago that anyone thought anything different.
Here's the thing; you say that AoS cannot be balanced with points. You say that is because it was designed without balance in mind. I contend that your reasoning is false; AoS can be balanced with points despite it not being designed with balance in mind. Then you restate what you said before, and its coming across to me with a holier-than-thou attitude to boot. You can disagree with my reasoning, fine, but please stop claiming that you have some rational high ground.
[edit] For that matter, I can see where this is going to go. I've said my piece so I won't respond on this any further. We each have a theory about whether or not points could potentially work, we both have reasoning to support that, and that's that. I expect a coming post to have some real or implied content about how your reasoning is better, so sure, you win the argument. I'll be off enjoying the game without this news having impacted that and I hope you can do that same.
[edit2] And for evidence to support the above claim:
End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.
That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".
It sounds like you are unhappy because you feel players prefer having a points structure. So then, you admit that AoS has a better majority appeal with points?
You can either say AoS is fine without points and not be afraid of the fallout from this, or accept that most people prefer points and thus have a legitimate concern for how you play. You can't have both.
Sort of. I think the majority of players want a game with a points structure and tight, competitve play. I think AOS was never that game and never will be. In marketing it towards them, GW will kill it for its intended market. Then exposure will breed disdain for the "real" players, and AOS will be abandoned to die, cold, broken and alone.
I can see that, but the community as it stands looks like the majority of AoS players took the game and made it into a structured one, and are enjoying it. Certainly I do, more than WHFB even. So the disagreement comes down to "AoS was never that game and never will be" from what I see it already is that game.
I don't see that as a viable, long term solution. The players who use the comp systems are already heavily invested in Warhammer as a brand/range as well as the tournament scene. As AOS and tournaments are irreconcilably different, the marriage will become more and more strained. Frankly, I'd chalk up competitive AOS tourneys to the sunken costs fallacy in action. Sure, GW can expect official rules to improve sales for a year or two, but the congenital defects in Tourney AOS are going to catch up to it eventually. I can't see this generating more long term customer loyalty than WHFB post 7th.
To misappropriate terms from the BoardGame community, AOS seems to be hardline Ameritrash dressing up as a Eurogame in an attempt to win over the Eurogame market, a tactic fundamentally doomed to failure in a market glutted with quality wooden cube games.
Could you people take the talk about points being needed/good/bad a game mechanic etc to a new thread and leave this one for actual news and rumors please.
We have the annoucement that there coming and a rough time scale lets leave it at that in this thread. Please.
Wow Manchu, great job at sucking the fun out of this thread lol. For all your doom and gloom saying that players won't enjoy playing pick-up games with an SCGT style system, many people already do enjoy playing AoS pick-up games with a comp and many people will continue to do so.
Bottle wrote: Wow Manchu, great job at sucking the fun out of this thread lol. For all your doom and gloom saying that players won't enjoy playing pick-up games with an SCGT style system, many people already do enjoy playing AoS pick-up games with a comp and many people will continue to do so.
Bottle, you're a favorite poster of mine so I am super disappointed that you didn't bother to read my posts and just assigned a ridiculous bit of nonsense to my name. I have never said no one could or does enjoy playing AoS with comp systems; rather I have said that adding points does not make AoS a pick-up or tournament game although doing so could lead someone to falsely believe it is. I do think that someone who tries AoS thinking it is something other than what it is will likely end up with a negative view of it.
judgedoug wrote: Hey Manchu, since everyone is having fun putting words in your mouth, I also heard you say you were going to give me all of your LOTR figs.
Never! They are ... precious to me.
Skullhammer wrote: Could you people take the talk about points being needed/good/bad a game mechanic etc to a new thread and leave this one for actual news and rumors please.
This is a discussion forum. This thread is about discussing news. The current news is GW intends to add points to AoS. We are discussing it.
And let's leave this thread for discussion of actual News & Rumors related to AoS. Some debate is fine... but this has really gotten off-topic for a N&R thread.
AOS was losing ground to KOW, so GW tore a page right out of Mantic's playbook. That's some competition that isn't balanced.
Hah. Well, except KoW was designed from the ground up for tournament/pick up and play/hyperbalance. AoS, at no point during it's creation and execution, had any design goal of a points-based balancing mechanic. It will be amusing to see everyone argue about whatever random slapped on numbers get applied to units. AoS is so inherently random that it is impossible to balance (much like 40k is now)
I was just referring to getting the fans to do all the work for free. Mantic wrote the (badly edited, page X) book on that.
I think KoW is an amazing success for Mantic and really do hope to play the crap out of it eventually. However, AOS was not just a refinement on the existing fantasy wargame tropes, but an attempt to open up an entirely new dimension in wargaming, one I feel is terribly underserved. Sadly, I think GW shot their game in the foot, maybe even the head, by launching it from the smoldering corpse of an iconic and beloved game.
But does the recent, very successful South Coast Grand Tournament not show that it can work as a tournament game? Maybe not an ultra cut throat uber competitive game, but a fun, functional tournament game.
Skullhammer wrote: Could you people take the talk about points being needed/good/bad a game mechanic etc to a new thread and leave this one for actual news and rumors please.
This is a discussion forum. This thread is about discussing news. The current news is GW intends to add points to AoS. We are discussing it.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I was just referring to getting the fans to do all the work for free.
This is the brilliant part.
"How do we implement a system that people who actually participate in organized play will like?"
"Let's just say the one that is already used by the best attended events is official."
ImAGeek wrote: But does the recent, very successful South Coast Grand Tournament not show that it can work as a tournament game? Maybe not an ultra cut throat uber competitive game, but a fun, functional tournament game.
That depends on your definition of "tournament." Is a tournament a competition where gamers gather to determine who is the most skilled player? Or is a tournament a fun gathering where people have a good time and the result really comes down to how the dice come out more than anything because the point was just to have a nice day together?
If the latter, then yes AoS is already a great tournament game.
(BTW the latter sounds a lot more enjoyable to me than the former but YMMV.)
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk) ... ...
That simply isn't true. For examples:
WRG Ancients or Field of Glory (Osprey) have points and restrictive army lists. WRG De Bellis Antiquitatis has restrictive army lists with equal numbers of units. Polemos Marechal de l'Empire has roll-up tables that generate a realistic but random army for the campaign selected to play (e.g. Russia 1812.) Fire and Fury asks players to analyse historical orders of battle and convert the number of troops into bases of infantry, artillery etc.
Etc, etc.
But I think that GW by running its two games -- 40K and WHFB -- on the basis of points for 15 years or more has conditioned a generation of players who have only ever played GW figure war games into thinking that points are the only way to organise things.
That approach will really please the community already using those rules - but it will simultaneously miff folks using other comps. So I expect GW will do exactly as they have said and draw from different systems. Whether this is smart or not really depends on whether it takes place in a black box, which is how GW has been doing everything for a while now. A unilateral points cost release will earn nothing but (well-deserved) criticism and will be a net-negative for the brand.
Unfortunately, that is what a company obsessed with control would do. A little more risky, probably way too risky for GW, is to let some established tournament scene take full responsibility for this process and just give them the GW imprimatur afterwards. In fact, I think the best way is to do this for several big scenes. There could be the Adepticon system and the UK system, for example. But again, this is contrary to GW's apparent preference for centralized control.
The other great thing about allowing existing player-created organizations handle this is that they have already qualified their market. The kind of people attracted to AoS tournaments are probably not expecting hard tests of skill. They just want points so they can plan to pack XYZ models (keep in mind AoS otherwise wants you to have your whole collection to hand); they are not necessarily interested in balance, as perhaps some posters here are.
Manchu wrote: That approach will really please the community already using those rules - but it will simultaneously miff folks using other comps. So I expect GW will do exactly as they have said and draw from different systems.
I missed that, did they say other events they'd be drawing from?
I certainly don't expect it to be the exact SCGT system - should save the files now to compare later
But if it's anything like what they did with Blood Bowl, taking the Living Rulebook and just tweaking it slightly... I think it'd be pretty solid! I also have a feeling that most folks will be happy just to have a universally acceptable "system" (should they choose to use one) for tourney play, even if it's not the one they were using previously.
Manchu wrote:[Bottle, you're a favorite poster of mine so I am super disappointed that you didn't bother to read my posts and just assigned a ridiculous bit of nonsense to my name. I have never said no one could or does enjoy playing AoS with comp systems; rather I have said that adding points does not make AoS a pick-up or tournament game although doing so could lead someone to falsely believe it is. I do think that someone who tries AoS thinking it is something other than what it is will likely end up with a negative view of it.
It's the last line I don't agree with as it seems quite arbitrary your decision that it is not good for pick-up/tournament games. Lots of people have fun playing pick-up games and tournament games with comped AoS. What does it matter if its creators in Nottingham didn't originally envisage such play with the game?
Manchu wrote:That depends on your definition of "tournament." Is a tournament a competition where gamers gather to determine who is the most skilled player? Or is a tournament a fun gathering where people have a good time and the result really comes down to how the dice come out more than anything because the point was just to have a nice day together?
If the latter, then yes AoS is already a great tournament game.
(BTW the latter sounds a lot more enjoyable to me than the former but YMMV.)
I'm not sure it's as clear cut as that. Do you think the winner of SCGT won just because the luck of the dice favoured them and player skill played no part?
Seems to me that an AoS tournament (with points) is both fun and requires skill to win - making it a great game for tournaments and pick-up games alike.
Is it offtopic to say that I love the new Orruks? I know Im a bit late but hey I will finally get a plastic shaman that I will convert for my savages, then I can finish off my Borc force with the new kits. I love that they continued with the Borcs and added more stuff to it. Best AoS release to date!
As for the points thing sorry to be simplistic but more options is always a positive if you ask me!
RiTides wrote: I missed that, did they say other events they'd be drawing from?
It's unclear, I'm sure deliberately (they probably honestly do not really know yet):
We’ve put these rules together in association with some of the world’s biggest tournament organisers, to create a new standard for balanced competitive play.
This indicates GW will be releasing their own comp but that existing organizers are somehow on board.
RiTides wrote: I certainly don't expect it to be the exact SCGT system - should save the files now to compare later
Oh lord I did not even think about it but yes there could be another round of crackdowns, like with BB.
Bottle wrote: it seems quite arbitrary your decision that it is not good for pick-up/tournament games
The thousands of words I have posted ITT carefully explaining otherwise and then reiterating those points in various other ways, with examples, form a strong counterpoint.
Bottle wrote: Do you think the winner of SCGT won just because the luck of the dice favoured them and player skill played no part?
Competitive gaming is about wringing as much luck out of the game as possible. A game's capacity for competitive play is inversely correlated to the amount of luck it involves. AoS involves a tremendous amount of luck and very little of it can be mitigated.
Bottle wrote: What does it matter if its creators in Nottingham didn't originally envisage such play with the game?
It matters because a game is the result of its design.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it offtopic to say that I love the new Orruks? I know Im a bit late but hey I will finally get a plastic shaman that I will convert for my savages, then I can finish off my Borc force with the new kits. I love that they continued with the Borcs and added more stuff to it. Best AoS release to date!
As for the points thing sorry to be simplistic but more options is always a positive if you ask me!
I was waiting to hear your opinion in the Nav! Glad you like them
NAVARRO wrote: Is it offtopic to say that I love the new Orruks? I know Im a bit late but hey I will finally get a plastic shaman that I will convert for my savages, then I can finish off my Borc force with the new kits. I love that they continued with the Borcs and added more stuff to it. Best AoS release to date!
As for the points thing sorry to be simplistic but more options is always a positive if you ask me!
I was waiting to hear your opinion in the Nav! Glad you like them
Thanks. Yeah they are still feral but more brutal now! I was a bit concerned with the new organization cuts but most seems to be ok and we actually got new units.
THe conversion potential of these new kits is just amazing too. These just got me into the drawing board again and I'm having so many ideas now.
Love it!
Now, they just have to un-nuke the Old World (or at the very least, introduce a more interesting background), make a more complex and strategic set of rules, and remove theses horrible sigmaries, and AOS will be a game worth playing.,
Kilkrazy wrote: But I think that GW by running its two games -- 40K and WHFB -- on the basis of points for 15 years or more has conditioned a generation of players who have only ever played GW figure war games into thinking that points are the only way to organise things.
I think you are correct - and that conditioning has/will continue to hit our forum especially hard because most posters are here for GW games and are likely the products of that conditioning.
NAVARRO wrote: Is it offtopic to say that I love the new Orruks? I know Im a bit late but hey I will finally get a plastic shaman that I will convert for my savages, then I can finish off my Borc force with the new kits. I love that they continued with the Borcs and added more stuff to it. Best AoS release to date!
As for the points thing sorry to be simplistic but more options is always a positive if you ask me!
I was waiting to hear your opinion in the Nav! Glad you like them
Thanks. Yeah they are still feral but more brutal now! I was a bit concerned with the new organization cuts but most seems to be ok and we actually got new units.
THe conversion potential of these new kits is just amazing too. These just got me into the drawing board again and I'm having so many ideas now.
Love it!
That's awesome, Navarro! I've been following your plog and just love your greenskins . Looking forward to seeing how you integrate the new big fellas with them
NAVARRO wrote: Is it offtopic to say that I love the new Orruks? I know Im a bit late but hey I will finally get a plastic shaman that I will convert for my savages, then I can finish off my Borc force with the new kits. I love that they continued with the Borcs and added more stuff to it. Best AoS release to date!
As for the points thing sorry to be simplistic but more options is always a positive if you ask me!
I was waiting to hear your opinion in the Nav! Glad you like them
Thanks. Yeah they are still feral but more brutal now! I was a bit concerned with the new organization cuts but most seems to be ok and we actually got new units.
THe conversion potential of these new kits is just amazing too. These just got me into the drawing board again and I'm having so many ideas now.
Love it!
That's awesome, Navarro! I've been following your plog and just love your greenskins . Looking forward to seeing how you integrate the new big fellas with them
Cheers mate. Speaking of big fellas have you guys noticed that the giants now get just a slot for themselves? I bet GW is planing to expand on that front!
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk) ... ...
That simply isn't true. For examples:
WRG Ancients or Field of Glory (Osprey) have points and restrictive army lists.
WRG De Bellis Antiquitatis has restrictive army lists with equal numbers of units.
Polemos Marechal de l'Empire has roll-up tables that generate a realistic but random army for the campaign selected to play (e.g. Russia 1812.)
Fire and Fury asks players to analyse historical orders of battle and convert the number of troops into bases of infantry, artillery etc.
Etc, etc.
But I think that GW by running its two games -- 40K and WHFB -- on the basis of points for 15 years or more has conditioned a generation of players who have only ever played GW figure war games into thinking that points are the only way to organise things.
I think that the very first points based game that I ever encountered was Trillion Credit Squadron by GDW. Pretty much a game driven by pure statistics....
I think that if they want the AoS Matched Games to work then they will also need to put in some form of force structure.
We will see, though my expectations... are not optimistic.
The Auld Grump - happy with Kings of War, but holding on to hope that Forge World comes out with a Warhammer game....
I think a good way they could encourage narrative gaming would be to put relatively significant restrictions on the army compositions for tournament gaming. That way they could work on tightening down specific factions, and people who wanted to play the Empire + Wood Elf + Dwarf Reunion Tour could do so in the narrative environment (moreso where that sort of army would belong).
It would help create a nice little distinction without necessarily forcing people into one camp or the other.
NAVARRO wrote: Speaking of big fellas have you guys noticed that the giants now get just a slot for themselves? I bet GW is planing to expand on that front!
Totally missed that, that's awesome!
I'd love a new Giant... or really any big independent monster. Going to see about converting my Maw Krusha to have no rider
RiTides wrote: I'd love a new Giant... or really any big independent monster.
I would wager you can look forward to many more big releases, the kind of stuff that will be hard to rip off in a future defined by 3-D printing. The maw-krusha ... or cabbage dragon, as I affectionately think of it ... along with the Star Drake are probably pretty indicative of what's to come - not to mention that Or(ru)ks have basically been re-scaled to Stormcast size, part of gradually shifting to 32mm Heroic, I think.
TheAuldGrump wrote: I think that if they want the AoS Matched Games to work then they will also need to put in some form of force structure.
It really, really depends on what you mean by "work." The simplest proposition is that GW just needs some framework so that players know what to tote to an organized event as AoS as-is seems to envision the players having their entire collections to hand. So that's the baseline. If the goal has anything to do with "balance," however, it will require what amounts to a spin-off game.
Ah, it's great news that there are going to be points costs again. Will have to wait and see what that entails. I really like the new Chaos stuff for AoS especially, it would be nice to have a more structured and crunchy way to play with them.
Skullhammer wrote: Could you people take the talk about points being needed/good/bad a game mechanic etc to a new thread and leave this one for actual news and rumors please.
We have the annoucement that there coming and a rough time scale lets leave it at that in this thread. Please.
I just want to say. As someone who only causally takes a peak at this thread, just to see what is going on in the game that replaced the one I use to play. I can't even find these "3 ways to play" rumours because of the amount of posts arguing about if points could save AoS. I had to give up trying to find it posted here and had to look up the repost of it on Nakfa.
I never touched Age of Sigmar after reading the rules for it. When the points system/force org/ect comes back into the game I will look at it. If the new rules impress me, I might actually even try and game of it. I only play pick-up games, and no one even tries to play that game pick up from what I've seen.
Count me among those really happy with the Ironjawz release, I don't play greenskins but it is nice to see a less niche release of new models. Ironjawz feel like they work really well in terms of players adding to collections they already have, where are the previous ones either built on the starter or seemed very stand-alone.
The best chance the line has of picking up steam/continuing to do so is probably more factions getting facelifts ... of course this also the most expensive and risky way to expand sales. I think Sigmarines, Khorne Guys, and now Orruks have been on target but imagine how bad even a single miss could hurt.
I was about to say it will be trickier to upscale the less monstrous factions but then I remembered Duardin.
I know I am late to the party, but is their any credibility to the whole "Tomb kings" and "Britonians" not actually being squated but going to be rereleased for AoS? Can't remember where, but thought I had read Britonians where all actually already done in new plastics waiting to be released when AoS changed everything.
mjl7atlas wrote: I know I am late to the party, but is their any credibility to the whole "Tomb kings" and "Britonians" not actually being squated but going to.be rereleased for AoS? Can't remember where but thought I had read Britonians where all actually already done in new plastics waiting to be released when AoS changed everything.
That rumor came from faeit, who got it from a poster on Something Awful...
This is great news! Too bad that they are probably not bringing the Old World back, but this might still be enough to get me to finish my Stormcasts. I am not a competitive player by any means, far from it, but I still like to have some bloody structure, so I welcome the points. It doesn't need to be perfect to be useful.
And yes, this is a pro-point comment from a person who doesn't currently play AoS. But certainly the whole idea is to attract more people to the game?
Kilkrazy wrote: But I think that GW by running its two games -- 40K and WHFB -- on the basis of points for 15 years or more has conditioned a generation of players who have only ever played GW figure war games into thinking that points are the only way to organise things.
I think you are correct - and that conditioning has/will continue to hit our forum especially hard because most posters are here for GW games and are likely the products of that conditioning.
To be fair, pretty much every other GW game since the early/mid 90's has used points systems as well, as does every major tabletop wargame out there currently, such as X-Wing, Warmahordes, Dropzone Commander, Flames of War, Bolt Action, Kings of War, Heavy Gear, Infinity, Battletech, Firestorm Armada, etc ad nauseum. Even relatively old school games like OGRE/GEV use a points system.
Wargames in general typically run on points systems. There are exceptions, but usually these games also tend to provide pre-determined forces of some sort with very defined battlefields and objectives, they don't do what GW does and say "here's some random objective, arrange the board however you want, bring whatever you want, and go for it!". Even GW's older games that had no points were intended to be much more structured than what they've been trying to do of late. Rogue Trader advocated a 3rd player GM who who select forces and create the scenario in detail for example.
To expect that people would just embrace such an open ended and unstructured environment would be expecting a lot I would think.
Skullhammer wrote: Could you people take the talk about points being needed/good/bad a game mechanic etc to a new thread and leave this one for actual news and rumors please.
We have the annoucement that there coming and a rough time scale lets leave it at that in this thread. Please.
I just want to say. As someone who only causally takes a peak at this thread, just to see what is going on in the game that replaced the one I use to play. I can't even find these "3 ways to play" rumours because of the amount of posts arguing about if points could save AoS. I had to give up trying to find it posted here and had to look up the repost of it on Nakfa.
I never touched Age of Sigmar after reading the rules for it. When the points system/force org/ect comes back into the game I will look at it. If the new rules impress me, I might actually even try and game of it. I only play pick-up games, and no one even tries to play that game pick up from what I've seen.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, pretty much every other GW game since the early/mid 90's has used points systems as well, as does every major tabletop wargame out there currently, such as X-Wing, Warmahordes, Dropzone Commander, Flames of War, Bolt Action, Kings of War, Heavy Gear, Infinity, Battletech, Firestorm Armada, etc ad nauseum.
That's not a coincidence.Publishers take the market into consideration. Specifically, force orgs and points are game mechanics but also pull double duty vis-a-vis organizing a product line. More importantly, these mechanics are the basis for pick-up gaming, which is super important if your potential customers are buying games to play and participate in events at game stores. So incorporating these mechanics has a lot to do with factors that aren't intrinsically related to the game itself. Miniatures games do not of themselves require points-based balancing and they have certainly not always had it. As offline retail becomes less important, don't be surprised to see more designers finally innovating away from points.
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, pretty much every other GW game since the early/mid 90's has used points systems as well, as does every major tabletop wargame out there currently, such as X-Wing, Warmahordes, Dropzone Commander, Flames of War, Bolt Action, Kings of War, Heavy Gear, Infinity, Battletech, Firestorm Armada, etc ad nauseum.
That's not a coincidence.Publishers take the market into consideration. Specifically, force orgs and points are game mechanics but also pull double duty vis-a-vis organizing a product line. More importantly, these mechanics are the basis for pick-up gaming, which is super important if your potential customers are buying games to play and participate in events at game stores. So incorporating these mechanics has a lot to do with factors that aren't intrinsically related to the game itself. Miniatures games do not of themselves require points-based balancing and they have certainly not always had it. As offline retail becomes less important, don't be surprised to see more designers finally innovating away from points.
Right, but then in instances where games do not have points values, they also aren't the open ended "bring anything and everything" that GW has tried, at least as far as I'm aware. These tend to be either historical in nature, or more along the lines of old school Rogue Trader, where there's either existing material laying out what forces will be used and what the battlefield will look like, or they have a third party set those things up. I can't recall any wargame that left everything from the factions present, to the army compostion, battle objective, and tabletop setup basically completely up to the opposing players to settle on themselves the way AoS did. As far as I'm aware, games either have points systems, or relatively detailed pre-determined force setups and battlefields, or a GM to do that. The "conditioning" to points is a relatively natural one, and one that tabletop wargames have used even before GW existed (e.g. OGRE/GEV), as otherwise you need these other mechanisms to prevent things from turning into a mess, and with GW's business model seemingly centered around brick and mortar stores, it certainly doesn't appear that foregoing all these mechanics (points, predetermined scenarios, GM's) has been functioning as desired.
That's not really how AoS necessarily works. The idea is much closer to what you might find among historical gamers. A couple of guys who have been collecting WW2 stuff for years might say, hey let's do a game where we can use XYZ - not because it is a balanced match up, not because it is historically accurate, but just because it seems fun and we have the models. Now of course if it doesn't seem fun to them, they won't do it. This is nothing new and it's certainly goes back further than points-based listbuilding. AoS only seems unique because people used to buying GW are so inured to this LGS-centric model of pick-up gaming.
But getting back to KK's post - GW have grown a market that expects points. You can even tell from the responses in this thread that the mere promise of points is enough to make some posters warily soften up on AoS. The trouble is, I think people hate the idea of not having points more than they like the reality of points. A large number of posts on this site come down to complaints about how much a unit or option costs.
That's not really how AoS necessarily works. The idea is much closer to what you might find among historical gamers. A couple of guys who have been collecting WW2 stuff for years might say, hey let's do a game where we can use XYZ - not because it is a balanced match up, not because it is historically accurate, but just because it seems fun and we have the models. Now of course if it doesn't seem fun to them, they won't do it. This is nothing new and it's certainly goes back further than points-based listbuilding. AoS only seems unique because people used to buying GW are so inured to this LGS-centric model of pick-up gaming.
I'm sure some people do that kind of thing, but it doesn't seem like the way most people would play a game routinely, and I can't recall an entire game and product line based around that concept (even stuff going back to pre-GW days, like wargames from the 70's) without any of the aforementioned structures or GM, especially a game from a company built around brick and mortar stores. Even Chainmail (the D&D precursor) had a points system.
Do a little research, seems like you will be surprised by how little formal structure there is out there in miniatures wargaming generally. A lot of it comes down to scenario play, which GW is marketing as "open play" and "narrative play." I would just call this "miniatures wargaming." From my perspective, looking at it historically, point-based listbuilding is a niche of wargaming, a niche built on the a certain approach to the market, itself based on the now-declining LGS model of retail and principally sold to a then-younger although now thirtysomethingish customer base. That's who is supposed to key into Match Play. I don't think that's the customer base that is going to grow GW's business.
That's not really how AoS necessarily works. The idea is much closer to what you might find among historical gamers. A couple of guys who have been collecting WW2 stuff for years might say, hey let's do a game where we can use XYZ - not because it is a balanced match up, not because it is historically accurate, but just because it seems fun and we have the models. Now of course if it doesn't seem fun to them, they won't do it. This is nothing new and it's certainly goes back further than points-based listbuilding. AoS only seems unique because people used to buying GW are so inured to this LGS-centric model of pick-up gaming.
I'm sure some people do that kind of thing, but it doesn't seem like the way most people would play a game routinely, and I can't recall an entire game and product line based around that concept (even stuff going back to pre-GW days, like wargames from the 70's) without any of the aforementioned structures or GM, especially a game from a company built around brick and mortar stores. Even Chainmail (the D&D precursor) had a points system.
Maybe more people would play that way regularly if they ever tried it in the first place. With the right people, it can be a lot of fun and very easy to start. For people who want structure and balance, not so much I guess.
Most of my BFG games played out that way, with either my entire collection or forces chosen by thematic considerations. That method made it incredibly rewarding every time I bought a single miniature because I didn't have to wait for a balanced force or even collect a complete fleet if I only wanted a couple ships. Sadly, it came to an end when my brother and all my friends except A and B moved away, where A and B see every board game as a match of skill and cunning between the two of them that must end in humiliation for the loser. Then it stopped being fun.
I view AOS as a tabletop wargame designed for people who are not heavy into tabletop wargaming. For collectors, you might say. The mechanics seem to reflect this with their whimsy.
And let's leave this thread for discussion of actual News & Rumors related to AoS. Some debate is fine... but this has really gotten off-topic for a N&R thread.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I view AOS as a tabletop wargame designed for people who are not heavy into tabletop wargaming. For collectors, you might say.
I totally agree - and as ambivalent as I feel about any "official" points system there is one factor that I think really calls out for it. The way you are supposed to select forces in AoS is great if you have everything you own at your fingertips. But it's not so great for participating in an event, especially if you need to travel to get there. A game with a points system has a big advantage in that situation. So even if you are only going to an event to have a good time, and you don't care at all about being competitive, having a points system can help you plan what to bring along. Now that is a very modest use for a points system, of course, and doesn't get to what I think most people really want out of it, i.e., some kind of balance for pick-up gaming. But I think GW's announcement speaks to organized play, not necessarily balance.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm glad to see the increase in the minis' scale. It makes them seem more imposing and heroic next to the classic range.
I'm really interested to see what happens when someone mixes things together - the Stormcast didn't really have anything to be mixed with, but the Orcs certainly do!
Navarro posted above and has some fantastic Savage Orcs already built for AoS. I think having those next to their hulking brethren here (looking much like nobs do compared to regular boyz in 40k - or even bigger!) could be quite cool
RiTides wrote: the Stormcast didn't really have anything to be mixed with, but the Orcs certainly do!
Don't forget Chaos. IMO the old Chaos Warriors don't look great on round bases, since their pose is all smooshed up to cram into rank and file, and they look worse next to 32mm Khorne dudes.
Re: Chaos warriors on round bases - Yeah, that's the downside of some of the ranked poses being on circular bases - they were cast to fit shoulder-to-shoulder!
Unfortunately, some of the 'ard boyz (former black orcs) fit this category, too - but I think they could look better as the "little brothers" of the new sculpts. Smaller things like night goblins (see Navarro's work for these and black orcs, starting here in his blog!) might fit in even better though, as the size difference will be even more exaggerated (and justified!).
Yeah I jumped on the first post a bit late yesterday - thread kind of blew up with the news so apologies / etc
Manchu is usually the one updating with the pics though - within the day I've found the latest pics are in the OP, which makes glancing through for them handy!
Lockark wrote: Yesterday the title was changed but not the 1st post, unless that was a glitch with Dakka on mobile.
Another mod (Reds8n) often does posters the courtesy of changing the title as soon as he is aware of any news. He's posting from an earlier timezone. I follow after him updating the first post, taking down the old news and putting up the newest stuff so that anybody can check it out even if they don't want to get into the discussion.
RiTides wrote: Yeah I jumped on the first post a bit late yesterday
Ah thanks RiTides. It's good for the title to get updated ASAP.
RiTides wrote: Unfortunately, some of the 'ard boyz (former black orcs) fit this category, too - but I think they could look better as the "little brothers" of the new sculpts.
I am really tempted to start Or(ru)ks, just getting the new stuff onward. I would be shocked if I was the only one!
I'm hoping for more deity-specific warriors personally - and specifically for some kind of Tzeentch worshippers as this is turning out to be the year of Tzeentch. Maybe Silver Tower will come with some kind of terrible birdlike Chaos Warriors.
As an owner of Orcs,and a fan of vanilla AoS and points-structure, this last week has been like christmas in April for me (not to mention the new 40k Ork jet).
I've actually come around to think Orruk reads and sounds better than Orc. I got some Brutes to go with my Ogors. I think they've actually slightly toned down the pricing recently, as well. The brutes could easily have been Paladin price but they went Liberator, and the last campaign book knocked a few dollars off too.
"Orruk" flows off the tongue if you say it like Shatner.
Is there any solid info on new Tzeentch stuff, because that might be what breaks my will. Chaos never quite lived up to its promise in fantasy; more elaborate plastics would really help bring some pizzazz the ruinous powers. The old plastic warriors were better used as conversion fodder for space marines or inquisitors.
I don't doubt that the Chaos warriors (the 99 Ravens?) and birdmen of Tzeentch will look great and maybe be the first Tzeentch models urging me to collect an army sincy the last two setsof metal pink/blue horrors.
But
The increased AoS size is cool for a few models in your army towering over the rest, but I want miniatures, not bigatures. Sigh.
Is there any solid info on new Tzeentch stuff, because that might be what breaks my will. Chaos never quite lived up to its promise in fantasy; more elaborate plastics would really help bring some pizzazz the ruinous powers. The old plastic warriors were better used as conversion fodder for space marines or inquisitors.
Last was 'bird beastmen'-esque Tzeentch followers. That was taken to mean the Arcanites would have bird heads. And be part of the Silver Tower boardgame. Was also a mention of actual Blue Horrors (again, for the boardgame).
This is simply not true. Design is a matter of mechanics. Point-costed options is one such mechanic. A game designed to incorporate mechanic is fundamentally different from a game designed excluding that mechanic. So adding points will either change the game at a fundamental level or amount to nothing more than a tacked-on veneer. The latter should and will disappoint those who want a fantasy version of 40k and the former will disappoint those who like AoS from breaking out of the pick-up game model and returning to the scenario-driven approach.
Part of the playerbase obviously wanted to play with points as shown by point systems created and tournaments played using them and GW responded. This is good, probably the best news about GW in years no matter whether it fails or not.
I also think you seriously overestimate both the amount of thought put into AoS designing process and the result itself. It's a simple game that can be easily balanced and if not, if the Stardrake in Terminator Armour on a Comet Mount brakes it completly then it wasn't a good game to begin with tbh.
Also free warscrolls are perfect for an ongoing balancing effort, intentional or not its a basic design that right there seems suited to a point system. Worst case scenario, if the black hearted jocks rampaging whfb community for decades return, GW can shake the meta on a month to month basis or otherwise destroy the super dominant builds.
Not to mention that if the scenario driven gaming is such a godsend and a breath of fresh air after years in the competitive gutter for AoS players, why would they stop playing like that. If it's that good it will live on np.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Not to mention that if the scenario driven gaming is such a godsend and a breath of fresh air after years in the competitive gutter for AoS players, why would they stop playing like that. If it's that good it will live on np.
Especially since points only enchance it...
It's actually casual/narrative gamers that benefit MOST from points. Tournament competive players don't really benefit from points and balance from the core. It's narrative gamers who are biggest benefiters.
Plumbumbarum wrote: It's a simple game that can be easily balanced and if not ... then it wasn't a good game to begin with tbh.
False dilemma - either AoS is a broken pick-up game or it is worthless. This fallacy exactly sums up about 90%+ of posts on DakkaDakka concerning 'what's wrong with AoS.' IRL however AoS was clearly never designed to be this sort of game. The problem has been with the "reviewers" rather than the game, from day one to now.
There are cynical reasons GW would want to put its own comp system out there that have little/nothing to do with the alleged market of hypothetical "competitive" AoS players. For example - for years GW has shown a need to be in control of everything to do with their IP, going so far as to stomp out fan communities. In this case, releasing an official comp stands a good chance of killing all of the fan made systems people have been working on.
tneva82 wrote: Tournament competive players don't really benefit from points and balance from the core. It's narrative gamers who are biggest benefiters.
It looks like an upgrade sprue containing heads. The bodies are stock Black Guard. Also, is it possible to keep "3 ways to play" in the title? That info is only a day old, after all
Plumbumbarum wrote: It's a simple game that can be easily balanced and if not ... then it wasn't a good game to begin with tbh.
False dilemma - either AoS is a broken pick-up game or it is worthless. This fallacy exactly sums up about 90%+ of posts on DakkaDakka concerning 'what's wrong with AoS.' IRL however AoS was clearly never designed to be this sort of game. The problem has been with the "reviewers" rather than the game, from day one to now.
I didn't say worthless but if something can't be properly balanced in the system then how can it be balanced without the system. Or is the idea of eyeballing and talking with opponent for the sake of balance also abandoned now for just having fun no matter hopelessly decimated or not. I can have fun with that btw but can everybody.
There are cynical reasons GW would want to put its own comp system out there that have little/nothing to do with the alleged market of hypothetical "competitive" AoS players. For example - for years GW has shown a need to be in control of everything to do with their IP, going so far as to stomp out fan communities. In this case, releasing an official comp stands a good chance of killing all of the fan made systems people have been working on. ?
I wonder if it's ironic that it's me giving GW benefit of doubt but they have quite a string of good decisions lately. But sure, you can also say that they just want to release something broken here and there for the good old boost in sales, or are just desparate or sth tbh. IDK.
Atia wrote: how long do they post their white dwarf studio armies now on the last site? It has nothing to do with next week
Are you bound by some kind of rumour monger code that prevents you from just posting what you mean?
Plumbumbarum wrote: you can also say that they just want to release something broken here and there for the good old boost in sales, or are just desparate or sth tbh
I think at minimum GW wants some control over what rules are used at organized events, even if it isn't running them or even supporting them.
tneva82 wrote: Tournament competive players don't really benefit from points and balance from the core. It's narrative gamers who are biggest benefiters.
In what world ... ?
In the world in which narrative players like to be able to quickly put together a scenario between roughly-equal forces instead of spending a bunch of time creating their own balance system to figure out what forces would be appropriate. For example, a narrative player who plays a good narrative game (IOW, not AoS or 40k) can say "let's play a siege game, I'll take 750 points and this fortification, you get 1000 points to attack it" and have a reasonable expectation that the game will be balanced and fun on the first attempt to play it. With AoS you can't do that, you have to negotiate specific forces that you think will be roughly equal because there's no way to determine how powerful a given unit is. It's a much harder task to do, and involves spending a lot of time on something that has nothing to do with the desired story-focused aspects of the game.
Tournament players, on the other hand, just play whatever is most overpowered if you make balance mistakes. They certainly benefit from having better balance, but it's much less essential.
Peregrine wrote: in which narrative players like to be able to quickly put together a scenario between roughly-equal forces
This sounds suspiciously like a pick-up game. Well, no, it sounds exactly like a pick-up game.
Peregrine wrote: Tournament players, on the other hand, just play whatever is most overpowered
Well sure that is the cynical end of the spectrum. I was more talking about the idealistic end, players who want to prove their skill during play as much as or moreso than while writing their lists.
The pic above is a converted unit. The text is the hint.
Wouldn't be surprised to see them finally release their multipart Khorgorath ...^^
That is definitely a possibility, but why use the word tasty? It sounds more like ghouls or possibly zombies. Out of everything in the death grand alliance the zombies are the most in need of a refresh.
Atia wrote: how long do they post their white dwarf studio armies now on the last site? It has nothing to do with next week
Are you bound by some kind of rumour monger code that prevents you from just posting what you mean?
Plumbumbarum wrote: you can also say that they just want to release something broken here and there for the good old boost in sales, or are just desparate or sth tbh
I think at minimum GW wants some control over what rules are used at organized events, even if it isn't running them or even supporting them.
What she means is that the picture on the last page, in this case someone's converted Dark Elves, have nothing to do with the text hint for next week's magazine. In this case I'd guess maybe Undead? Korgorath maybe but they don't care about "tasty flesh", they just want the skulls! Hopefully zombies, those are horrific models currently.
Very helpful, Mymearan - just want to make sure the title accurately reflects the leak. I haven't read a WD since AoS was released so ... I have no idea if a WD leaked pic is somebody's personal conversion or a repackaged release.
tneva82 wrote: Tournament competive players don't really benefit from points and balance from the core. It's narrative gamers who are biggest benefiters.
In what world ... ?
Narrative gamers can get roughly equal games quickly without having to worry about getting stomped.
Tournament players DON'T CARE that there's crap unit and broken unit. They just take the broken unit. They don't have any specific reason "I want to have this unit" except it's most efficient. Therefore whether it's unit A or unit B it's irrelevant. If it's A then tournament players take A, if it's B they take B.
Narrative players meanwhile some want to take A or some want to take B because of look, fluff, specific scenario.
THEY are the ones that benefit from having even roughly decent way of ensuring it's not stomp fest even by accident(one wouldn't think taking single tzeentch herald be recipe for stompfestival...Until you realize you are fairly sure to have about 100 herald right off the bat and keep piling up until you start bombarding with mortal wounds).
Tournament players simply find task of figuring out most bang for bucks part the fun. For them it's irrelevant are points balanced or not.
For people asking about feedback on SCGT points, I wrote a tournament battle report from a Scottish tournament that made use of SCGT points and comp. I found it to be a good pack, but overlong, and the scenarios (we only played the first three) to be kind of boringly samey. The points seemed good, and I never felt that they were to blame for any victories.
tneva82 wrote: Narrative gamers can get roughly equal games quickly without having to worry about getting stomped.
Again - you seem to be talking about pick-up gaming. Setting up a scenario does not at all entail a points system if the principal aim is to play out a dramatic battle, as opposed to giving each side a roughly equal chance at victory, all else being equal, which is actually the point (or at least a point) of balance in PUGs. Nothing about regular old "narrative gaming" (just adopting GW's marketing jargon here) requires the opposing forces to have a fair shot at victory.
tneva82 wrote: Tournament players DON'T CARE that there's crap unit and broken unit.
IME this isn't true, or at least not the whole truth. Some tourney gamers don't care and are WAAC types. Others find that kind of thing to be the bane of tournaments, which after all are supposed to be competitions of skillful playing.
Somehow, but tasty would still not make sense for Tyranids
Manchu wrote: Nothing about regular old "narrative gaming" (just adopting GW's marketing jargon here) requires the opposing forces to have a fair shot at victory.
kodos wrote: Somehow, but tasty would still not make sense for Tyranids
Manchu wrote: Nothing about regular old "narrative gaming" (just adopting GW's marketing jargon here) requires the opposing forces to have a fair shot at victory.
The true tactical master wins against the odds, muahahaha. Used to love small force + fortifications vs BIG force games of Epic. I digress...
Points can only be a good thing. Ignore 'em if you wanna (as you can do in any game if you choose), play a scenario (or make your own instead of buying a book, where did creativity go?) or comp it up and min-max to your black heart's content. It's all good. Hard to find a negative here anywhere!
tneva82 wrote: Tournament competive players don't really benefit from points and balance from the core. It's narrative gamers who are biggest benefiters.
In what world ... ?
In the world in which narrative players like to be able to quickly put together a scenario between roughly-equal forces instead of spending a bunch of time creating their own balance system to figure out what forces would be appropriate. For example, a narrative player who plays a good narrative game (IOW, not AoS or 40k) can say "let's play a siege game, I'll take 750 points and this fortification, you get 1000 points to attack it" and have a reasonable expectation that the game will be balanced and fun on the first attempt to play it. With AoS you can't do that, you have to negotiate specific forces that you think will be roughly equal because there's no way to determine how powerful a given unit is. It's a much harder task to do, and involves spending a lot of time on something that has nothing to do with the desired story-focused aspects of the game.
Tournament players, on the other hand, just play whatever is most overpowered if you make balance mistakes. They certainly benefit from having better balance, but it's much less essential.
Surely tournament players/powergamer would NOT want a composition system that stops them from fielding ten Bloodthirsters and a Stardrake if they lust for cheese?
I never plan on going to a tournament, but I welcome/want a composition mechanism so I can plan and collect and convert a given force and know that it wouldn't simply roflstomp another of mine or my brother's. It also helps me to size up projects.
Having a framework to use does not mean one wants to powergame. Lists and armies will be stronger or weaker unless you play identical armies, but it's no reason to not even offer something to make army selection more than "plunk down whatever you want".
Charles Rampant wrote: For people asking about feedback on SCGT points, I wrote a tournament battle report from a Scottish tournament that made use of SCGT points and comp. I found it to be a good pack, but overlong, and the scenarios (we only played the first three) to be kind of boringly samey. The points seemed good, and I never felt that they were to blame for any victories.
Thanks for the summary and the link, Charles Rampant! It's very helpful
Bottle wrote: @Yodhrin, now there will be balanced play have you considered using the AoS rules for some skirmish games set in the Old World? (If you wanted to go for a slightly bigger scale than Mordheim offers). I hope you give it a try. :-)
And to chime in with the news. I am overjoyed.
Why on earth would I reward GW for blowing up the setting? I won't help perpetuate AoS by playing it or buying AoS model releases(not even, as is the case with the Orc Shaman, when I quite like them) from GW. If I want to play skirmish games in the Realhammer World, I can do that also without paying a penny for rules without even having to move outside GW by continuing to use the far-superior Mordheim system. That's without even considering the various other skirmish systems out there which all have more depth to them than AoS - crikey Ketara managed in just a couple of days to come up with a conversion of most of The Empire's rules into the LotR SBG that looks more interesting than AoS.
GW, for my money, had three roles to play; providing a ubiquitous game system that made it easy to find other players, and supporting the IPs I enjoyed with new fiction and models that fit the aesthetic. With AoS, they're scoring 0.5 out of 3(because some of the new models still fit with WHF's aesthetic), and that's not a level I'm willing to support with my time or spending.
I'm not going to lie, a part of me hopes this makes no difference and AoS continues to tank hard because its demise is I think probably the only chance, vanishingly small though it may be, of seeing WHFB back before I'm drawing a pension, but that's just selfishness on my part.
NinthMusketeer wrote: but the community as it stands looks like the majority of AoS players took the game and made it into a structured one
You have to look at what your evidence is for this kind of claim. Generally, it tends to be pretty heavily biased. "Most people on a forum dedicated to pick-up game rulesets have tried to turn AoS into a pick-up game." Well, sure.
Based on what Hastings has to say(and the preponderance of anecdote from indie store owners and clubs), there aren't enough people outside of "people on a forum dedicated to pick-up game rulesets" playing AoS, because it's tanking like an M1-A1 Abrams. GW made almost no effort to save WHFB, which accounted for around 20% of their revenue and was still profitable just not profitable enough, and AoS is doing worse than that - AoS fans should really be kissing GW's feet for trying anything at all to keep the system afloat, rather than moaning at the possibility they might have to interact with the competitive peasantry.
Just saying... Couldn't it be the hint is referring to Ogres? Ghouls are rather "new", speaking of models, and Warhammer Zombies are more the classic kind of shambling undeads, rather than flesh-eating, speaking entities.
I find this encouraging. It could mean that the management finally realizes that the majority of their money doesn't come from people who just buy anything they shovel out. Their market isn't 'collectors.'
Its people who play their game. And when you don't have a game they like anymore... they'll leave! (shocking!).
These fumbling steps are maybe the first signs they're trying to figure out what people actually want, rather than 'they want to give us money'.
GW, for my money, had three roles to play; providing a ubiquitous game system that made it easy to find other players, and supporting the IPs I enjoyed with new fiction and models that fit the aesthetic.
They did that, now they don't. Time to move on, I reckon.
GW, for my money, had three roles to play; providing a ubiquitous game system that made it easy to find other players, and supporting the IPs I enjoyed with new fiction and models that fit the aesthetic.
They did that, now they don't. Time to move on, I reckon.
GW, for my money, had three roles to play; providing a ubiquitous game system that made it easy to find other players, and supporting the IPs I enjoyed with new fiction and models that fit the aesthetic.
They did that, now they don't. Time to move on, I reckon.
Off you go then
I did years ago. I still find the comings and goings of GW interesting though.
Joyboozer is right. How dare some of you continue to participate and take interest in the releases of a company in a community you enjoy being part of.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Joyboozer is right. How dare some of you continue to participate and take interest in the releases of a company in a community you enjoy being part of.
kodos wrote: Somehow, but tasty would still not make sense for Tyranids
Manchu wrote: Nothing about regular old "narrative gaming" (just adopting GW's marketing jargon here) requires the opposing forces to have a fair shot at victory.
In what world?
Just look at Historicals.
And?
I play a lot of them since Fantasy 8th. And in all of them both side had always a fair shot at victory.
Victory conditions were not always that straight foward like "kill all" but both sides had always a chance to win
(no reason to play D-Day in FoW without having a chance to lose the game as allied Player. if you win no matter what you do there is no reason to play)
kodos wrote: Somehow, but tasty would still not make sense for Tyranids
Manchu wrote: Nothing about regular old "narrative gaming" (just adopting GW's marketing jargon here) requires the opposing forces to have a fair shot at victory.
In what world?
Just look at Historicals.
And?
I play a lot of them since Fantasy 8th. And in all of them both side had always a fair shot at victory.
Victory conditions were not always that straight foward like "kill all" but both sides had always a chance to win
(no reason to play D-Day in FoW without having a chance to lose the game as allied Player. if you win no matter what you do there is no reason to play)
You clearly didn't understand what I meant. Some people are just playing for the fun of it. Not necessarily to win or even achieve prescribed victory conditions. They play historicals to reenact the fight, regardless of the imbalance. It doesn't matter to them.
You're looking at historicals from a competitive-everyone-gets-a-fair-shot-at-victory point of view, which is fine, but it's not the only view of things. A lot of historical players just downright don't care that they have a smaller chance of victory in a given scenario - they just want to play it for the sake of the narrative.
You need to change the paradigm there.
Edit: For example, as a diehard HE player I would have no issue whatsoever reenacting the battle for the Isle of the Dead in which the Old world Vortex was created. The HE player would be massively outnumbered and the demon player would have endless units popping out. I'd just want to see for how long I could hold on, even if I had low chances of achieving the necessary winc onditions
Is it fair for the HE player? Surely not, but that's not the point.
Well, with "3 ways to play" ideally those who are attracted to that type of scenario play (or Narrative) can have more support for it, while others who want roughly similar forces can also do so (Matched). Finally, with "Open" gaming could continue just as it is now.
I'm very interested in what their next release is... overall, I'm more impressed by the Ironjawz release than anything else for AoS to date. Strong aesthetic, lots of choices, all plastic! I doubt most of the races will get this comprehensive of a release, but anything close would be awesome
RiTides wrote: Well, with "3 ways to play" ideally those who are attracted to that type of scenario play (or Narrative) can have more support for it, while others who want roughly similar forces can also do so (Matched). Finally, with "Open" gaming could continue just as it is now.
I'm very interested in what their next release is... overall, I'm more impressed by the Ironjawz release than anything else for AoS to date. Strong aesthetic, lots of choices, all plastic! I doubt most of the races will get this comprehensive of a release, but anything close would be awesome
Fingers crossed for an Elf dragon that rivals that Maw Krusha in awesomeness
Edit: For example, as a diehard HE player I would have no issue whatsoever reenacting the battle for the Isle of the Dead in which the Old world Vortex was created. The HE player would be massively outnumbered and the demon player would have endless units popping out. I'd just want to see for how long I could hold on, even if I had low chances of achieving the necessary winc onditions
Is it fair for the HE player? Surely not, but that's not the point.
So telling me that I did not understand you but give an example were you added special victoriy conditions for the HE Player (see how long he hold on)?
No matter what, you always add something to game that people have a reason to try hard. If you "win" because you hold your HE hold more than 3 turns against the demons or the enemy could not achieve a break through until round 4 doesn't matter.
But no one ever says "no matter what you do, I win
Edit: For example, as a diehard HE player I would have no issue whatsoever reenacting the battle for the Isle of the Dead in which the Old world Vortex was created. The HE player would be massively outnumbered and the demon player would have endless units popping out. I'd just want to see for how long I could hold on, even if I had low chances of achieving the necessary winc onditions
Is it fair for the HE player? Surely not, but that's not the point.
So telling me that I did not understand you but give an example were you added special victoriy conditions for the HE Player (see how long he hold on)?
No matter what, you always add something to game that people have a reason to try hard. If you "win" because you hold your HE hold more than 3 turns against the demons or the enemy could not achieve a break through until round 4 doesn't matter.
But no one ever says "no matter what you do, I win
So....
Manchu wrote: Nothing about regular old "narrative gaming" (just adopting GW's marketing jargon here) requires the opposing forces to have a fair shot at victory.
And here I was thinking that we were talking about both sides having a fair shot at victory not being a necessity for a narrative game... The victory condition's there, but it's not necessarily fair and balanced for both sides.
In my opinion the best narrative scenarios still have a near equal chance of players winning - although what it means 'to win' should vary for each side.
For example the 'Last Stand' scenario from 8th was good because although one side was doomed narratively, they still had an objective of holding out for a certain number of turns to achieve victory for the player.
Or the 'Blood of the Primarch' mission from HH2 where the attacker has way more points but the defender's only victory condition is to keep their Primarch alive.
I really hope that the zombies are going to be a second AoS models that I like, first being the main khorne guy from starter. The orks are somehow kinda ok-ish but the armour plates remind me of first phase of my nurgle marines conversions when I just cut off bits of space marines.
On the other hand it might be hilarious seeing GW manage to ruin zombis design, AoS style. We'll see.
Ashiraya wrote: Or the 'Blood of the Primarch' mission from HH2 where the attacker has way more points but the defender's only victory condition is to keep their Primarch alive.
There are quite a few AoS scenarios that play around with that idea already.
The Narrative play already exists with AoS. Out of three the only new one is Matched Play; and this could very well be a living community-driven SCGT document (but rebranded).
What I do want to see added to the Narrative play in summer is a DIY campaign book. Template warscrolls, ideas for character generation, some XP mechanic, various different scenario types to link games together. To some degree parts of this already exists in AoS. I'd like to see them explore it further.
The problem with three ways to play is most communities (I'm going out on a limb here and assuming most communities are a lot like mine) are going to pick one of those ways to play and if you don't like that way to play and like one of the other two, you are going to be playing with yourself in your garage.
That said - options are good - and if you have a community open to more than just one way to play this is a good thing.
What I do want to see added to the Narrative play in summer is a DIY campaign book. Template warscrolls, ideas for character generation, some XP mechanic, various different scenario types to link games together. To some degree parts of this already exists in AoS. I'd like to see them explore it further.
I would buy this in a heartbeat. That would be an amazing release for AoS, I feel.
Ashiraya wrote: Or the 'Blood of the Primarch' mission from HH2 where the attacker has way more points but the defender's only victory condition is to keep their Primarch alive.
There are quite a few AoS scenarios that play around with that idea already.
The Narrative play already exists with AoS. Out of three the only new one is Matched Play; and this could very well be a living community-driven SCGT document (but rebranded).
What I do want to see added to the Narrative play in summer is a DIY campaign book. Template warscrolls, ideas for character generation, some XP mechanic, various different scenario types to link games together. To some degree parts of this already exists in AoS. I'd like to see them explore it further.
This is what I'm most excited about. I'm hoping it's like an expanded Path to Glory, big document, all sorts of campaign options.
So they are revising the game, providing 3 types of ways to play, and people are complaining because their preferred type is now one of 3 instead of sole or non-existent...
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So they are revising the game, providing 3 types of ways to play, and people are complaining because their preferred type is now one of 3 instead of sole or non-existent...
People are concerned that the introduction of 'points' will become the defacto way to play, even though it is listed third on the announcement poster.
I've not come to a full opinion on it yet but that's likely because I rarely play outside of a group of friends (once in 10+ years if I recall correctly).
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So they are revising the game, providing 3 types of ways to play, and people are complaining because their preferred type is now one of 3 instead of sole or non-existent...
Jervis is going to show up and force them to play pointed games.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So they are revising the game, providing 3 types of ways to play, and people are complaining because their preferred type is now one of 3 instead of sole or non-existent...
Jervis is going to show up and force them to play pointed games.
auticus wrote: The problem with three ways to play is most communities (I'm going out on a limb here and assuming most communities are a lot like mine) are going to pick one of those ways to play and if you don't like that way to play and like one of the other two, you are going to be playing with yourself in your garage.
That said - options are good - and if you have a community open to more than just one way to play this is a good thing.
Regarding the "garage" line - so about like it is now, right
It seems like folks who want to play in bigger settings (like the SCGT) were already implementing systems like this all over the world. It makes sense for GW to pick from the best of that (and base theirs on the most popular) and provide that structure for folks who want to game that way. Gaming in the garage should be unaffected
Note I'm joking here / making light of it, but I know it matters... but I think groups that established a way of playing AoS without any of the above systems already, should be able to readily adopt GW's "Narrative" option and improve their gameplay with more campaign elements - or even keep on gaming using the "Open" option - without being forced into the "Matched" option. There are 3 for a reason, let's see what GW implements before we declare any of them defunct
So, it's ok to continue the rules debate as long as you finish with " I like the new Orruks and looking forward to the next release" to cunningly appear on topic?
Yeah this whole thing was pretty smart on the part of GW. I'm actually thinking of picking up a starter set which is definitely not something I was planning to do.
Just a quick clarification since it came up above:
Discussing the rules is OK, although at this point we have almost no details! So, in-depth "general" discussion of possible rules mechanics can become OT - and we'll prompt you if things have gone a bit too far off the rails. Basically ask yourself - does this relate to the current news we have? Is it succinct enough to discuss here or does it deserve its own thread? If it passes those two tests, feel free to post here otherwise, please see further in-depth discussion in the AoS boards here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/688693.page
Certainly, getting some new release pics to talk about in this thread would be welcome and it sounds like those will be coming soon.
That new teaser is definitely executioners with Sisters of Slaughter heads. It doesn't make immediate sense with the associated blurb... Are they even linked to each other? Haven't scoped WD in a while...
Red_Zeke wrote: That new teaser is definitely executioners with Sisters of Slaughter heads. It doesn't make immediate sense with the associated blurb... Are they even linked to each other? Haven't scoped WD in a while...
Nah, the last picture is just 'regiments of renown' or something, and the teaser for next week is separate.
You clearly didn't understand what I meant. Some people are just playing for the fun of it. Not necessarily to win or even achieve prescribed victory conditions. They play historicals to reenact the fight, regardless of the imbalance. It doesn't matter to them.
You're looking at historicals from a competitive-everyone-gets-a-fair-shot-at-victory point of view, which is fine, but it's not the only view of things. A lot of historical players just downright don't care that they have a smaller chance of victory in a given scenario - they just want to play it for the sake of the narrative.
This. We just come up with a scenario or idea, then put down enough models to make it feel right. No points, no army lists, no "limit" to the size of the forces, nor real planning of "equal" sides. Just what seems about right for facilitating the game.
Necros wrote: Points is a good move, looking forward to that. Let's hope it will actually be balanced
maybe i missed it, but is it just going to be a WD update? or big new rulebook? or just a pdf? Hopefully the latter...
No word yet necros.
Automatically Appended Next Post: im curious if the points system does end up being a SCGT rehash I wonder if they will also adopt their rules?
I believe that they ruled abilities with the same name dont stack but the recent gwfaq says that there is no limitation on stacking unless specified by the ability.
my bloodbound bloodsecrators sure do hope they stay ruled as gw chose.
New zombies would be amazing - I was considering getting some of the old ones but they look so dated now. It would mark the first AoS models on 25mm... They wouldn't be on 32s right!?!?
Bottle wrote: New zombies would be amazing - I was considering getting some of the old ones but they look so dated now. It would mark the first AoS models on 25mm... They wouldn't be on 32s right!?!?
Zombies are available from a variety of companies. Buy those!
The comments about tasty flesh makes me think Ogres. They're the ones with the insatiable demand for people to eat.
Isn't everything going to be consumed by the Great Maw in the end anyways?
Is the Great Maw still a thing?
I'd be curious to see some new zombies, but with the glut of zombie sculpts out there these days (more so due to board games like Zombicide and such) I'm in no rush for more zombies. Would much prefer seeing Ogres get a big size bump.
Heck, I'm curious how the new Orc Brutes stack up to the Ogres. Might be able to replace/ supplement my Ogres with the new Orcs. I've always liked more feral/ wild looking Ogres anyways.
That Megaboss might make a bigger and more imposing Tyrant than the ones we've currently got!
Bottle wrote: New zombies would be amazing - I was considering getting some of the old ones but they look so dated now. It would mark the first AoS models on 25mm... They wouldn't be on 32s right!?!?
Zombies are available from a variety of companies. Buy those!
Sorry, I only buy GW. (I do lots of hobbying in store).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
highlord tamburlaine wrote: The comments about tasty flesh makes me think Ogres. They're the ones with the insatiable demand for people to eat.
Isn't everything going to be consumed by the Great Maw in the end anyways?
Is the Great Maw still a thing?
I'd be curious to see some new zombies, but with the glut of zombie sculpts out there these days (more so due to board games like Zombicide and such) I'm in no rush for more zombies. Would much prefer seeing Ogres get a big size bump.
Heck, I'm curious how the new Orc Brutes stack up to the Ogres. Might be able to replace/ supplement my Ogres with the new Orcs. I've always liked more feral/ wild looking Ogres anyways.
That Megaboss might make a bigger and more imposing Tyrant than the ones we've currently got!
The brutes are 40mms so I imagine they are the same size almost. Some head swaps could make amazing conversions!
highlord tamburlaine wrote: The comments about tasty flesh makes me think Ogres. They're the ones with the insatiable demand for people to eat.
Isn't everything going to be consumed by the Great Maw in the end anyways?
Is the Great Maw still a thing?
Ah, that's a good point! I think someone else mentioned Ogres earlier, too... that matches the hint text better than Undead, imo. Particularly (as already pointed out) the word "tasty"
I never know what to predict anymore, but it might be a re-boxing to rounds and a Start Collecting for Ogres? Would be a good accompaniment for GA: Destruction.
I've been wondering what a Start Collecting: Ogors would even consist of.
The way everything is based off the basic Bull body, and depending on what else they want to toss in, like a sprue of Irongut or Leadbelcher parts, could be interesting.
I am a bit torn about AoS designs... It's very clear to me the mandate is to re-do everything that was not able to be 100% locked in as GW IP. So that means that not only are all the factions renamed, but in a lot of cases fundamentally re-designed too to add in 'unique elements'.
While I do like a lot of new stuff, and some not so much, it saddens me to see that WHFB is truly intended to be dead and gone. Feels a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, all thanks to that pointless ChapterHouse lawsuit...
It may not make the most business sense, at least from a very conservative perspective, but I tend to like more distinctive rather than more generic designs. I think AoS is largely moving away from the latter and towards the former, even as the setting itself might be considered more generic compared to the 30YW-esque look of the Old World (although that is also debatable).
MajorTom11 wrote: I am a bit torn about AoS designs... It's very clear to me the mandate is to re-do everything that was not able to be 100% locked in as GW IP.
Too bad it didn't work that well. Pretty much only thing that stops other companies making good count as sigmarines or fyreslayers is...It ain't worth the money.
If there's money to be made there will be competition. And all GW can then do is provide best quality for the money to attract people buy their models than others.
If it's a new Ogre unit, they would be in the Grand Alliance book, right? If so, we should have some spoilers soon, when the first guys get their copy early.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Everything seems to be getting a "heroic" up sizing, though GW minis were already bigger than most.
wasn't this disproven through some side by sides with bloodbound and fyreslayers vs older minis?
I thought that the general consensus was that they only seem bigger since they are no longer restricted to regimental static poses?
While everything is getting even more heroic in terms of size, have we seen an actual, regular, human at this point?
I think it would be pretty cool if when the time comes, the average human are the same size as most of the current range. I wouldn't consider the Bloodbound to be normal humans at this point, but more roided out full of grimdark angst and rage types more than anything.
Heck, even the Fyreslayers aren't that drastically large compared to their old "Duardin" brothers. Their helmets, mohawks, and gear on the other hand...
Uriels_Flame wrote: Everything seems to be getting a "heroic" up sizing, though GW minis were already bigger than most.
wasn't this disproven through some side by sides with bloodbound and fyreslayers vs older minis?
I thought that the general consensus was that they only seem bigger since they are no longer restricted to regimental static poses?
Hanskrampf wrote: If it's a new Ogre unit, they would be in the Grand Alliance book, right? If so, we should have some spoilers soon, when the first guys get their copy early.
Not necessarily in the Grand Alliance book--especially if we end up seeing a new Ogre subfaction(like Ironjawz).
One of the audiodramas has Ogres with huge slabs of metal serving as shock troops for the rest of Ogres to follow behind.
I can imagine that any new Ogre (Ogor?) release will follow the pattern for most of the AOS releases and deliberately be 40k conversion fodder. I wouldn't be at all surprised if any forthcoming Ogre models are pretty Ogryny in appearance, for example.
Hanskrampf wrote: If it's a new Ogre unit, they would be in the Grand Alliance book, right? If so, we should have some spoilers soon, when the first guys get their copy early.
Not necessarily in the Grand Alliance book--especially if we end up seeing a new Ogre subfaction(like Ironjawz).
One of the audiodramas has Ogres with huge slabs of metal serving as shock troops for the rest of Ogres to follow behind.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So they are revising the game, providing 3 types of ways to play, and people are complaining because their preferred type is now one of 3 instead of sole or non-existent...
Heah. Must say that i also find it absurd. Even more considering that those playing narratives game are probably doing so in a tight knotted group, so i doubt introducing points will change anything for them.
streetsamurai wrote: so i doubt introducing points will change anything for them
It depends on the extent to which considering points on the back end starts influencing design on the front end, which (given GW's track record with 40k) seems doubtful. Even so, the concern is that the brand will become dominated by the PUG mentality - points don't add any mechanical "balance" to 40k, for example, but most people seem to think 40k is a PUG anyway.
Hopefully some fine Dakkanaut will take size comparison pics compared to an Ork Boy / Nob / Warboss (or ideally all 3!) upon release . Could definitely make for some sweet conversions!
I am thinking its a repackage of flesheater courts from the Death alliance. So ghouls and the like, possibly with a battletome/something new thrown in.
Details starting to come out in UK (national manager's meeting Monday).
4 classifications, not based on keywords - In essence characters, troops, warmachines and monsters.
Each category is min/maxed relative to the others.
Core rules unchanged.
Get down your local GW, looks like managers have been briefed on what the plans are and are allowed to discuss.
RoperPG wrote: Details starting to come out in UK (national manager's meeting Monday).
4 classifications, not based on keywords - In essence characters, troops, warmachines and monsters.
Each category is min/maxed relative to the others.
Core rules unchanged.
Get down your local GW, looks like managers have been briefed on what the plans are and are allowed to discuss.
Considering they already have those keywords I don't know why they wouldn't just use them.
The SCGT pool system, for example, is based around their house rules (i.e. units are costed based on the house rules and scenarios). 'Points' + the ability to summon a lot and 1+ saves. If this is the case it will not work; and can only be more damaging.
highlord tamburlaine wrote: While everything is getting even more heroic in terms of size, have we seen an actual, regular, human at this point?
I think it would be pretty cool if when the time comes, the average human are the same size as most of the current range. I wouldn't consider the Bloodbound to be normal humans at this point, but more roided out full of grimdark angst and rage types more than anything.
Heck, even the Fyreslayers aren't that drastically large compared to their old "Duardin" brothers. Their helmets, mohawks, and gear on the other hand...
if you out the duardin on a 32 mm base like the Fyreslayers is on there's not really a big diff, some are the same get and bulk. Same as a few demon slayes Mohawk height.
Veterannoob typing on a phone I think. There was a photo going around showing that if you remove the mohecan from the fyreslayers, they are exactly the same height as the 8th edition Dwarves. The models have certainly got bigger in Aos but I don't think the scale has. If next week does turn out to be new zombies, we should find out then. Failing that I am hopeful that the silver tower game will have regular humans.
RoperPG wrote: Each category is min/maxed relative to the others.
Can you extrapolate? Are you talking about a force org?
All I've got so far is this;
GW Hull Twitter So far from conclusive, but does suggest force org of a sort.
As to not using keywords, I'd imagine if they're producing a doc with unit X = Y points, adding a classification to it wouldn't be too difficult.
I'd hazard a guess that (for example) you might want a Celestant on Stardrake to be a 'behemoth' rather than a 'leader', which if based on keywords could get confusing.
Although the tweet isn't much to go on, it already suggests that this system won't be the SCGT as it is.
Our local GW manager is basically Bottle in a company shirt, so I'll be interested to see what his take on it is.
In terms of the 3 ways to play, GW has announced further details via the podcast (hopefully this isn't breaking any rules, as mod on warhammer.org I'd hate to be flaunting em!):
Welcome fans, to a VERY special episode of HeelanHammer. On today's show, we are joined by Ben Curry of The Bad Dice Podcast, and Russ Veal of the FaceHammer Podcast to discuss something rather exciting!
We were privilaged enough to have been asked by Games Workshop to help make something great.... enjoy!
Dan, I think we'd all be dying to hear your interpretation of the points you saw combined with the scenarios, and how you think it will do for the "balance" seekers. Thanks for the great podcasts!
Hey Dan, huge props for your work in the AoS Community, I've been listening since AoS launch and you've been an unrelenting force of positivity, helping the game grow... keep up the great work!
Dan, I think we'd all be dying to hear your interpretation of the points you saw combined with the scenarios, and how you think it will do for the "balance" seekers. Thanks for the great podcasts!
I can't really give too many thoughts at this stage, although we will obviously be discussing this more in the months to come. I think the main thing to remember with this book, is that is encourages multiple ways to play. Don't like points? Don't play that way. Love points? Something for you. When I play Wayne (co-host for those that don't know) we won't play points, we would play narrative. If I play a random new player at club I've never played I will play Matched as its. All ways are equally valid and I'm personally very excited about what this means for the game.
Also, if the system comes out and you don't agree with points/other bits, alter them as you see fit for your own games/events! We've been saying similar with our well received SCGT system - there are odd bits people don't like and don't agree with and we've encouraged people to take the system and adapt how you like - its a gaming aid. Much like this book, think 'toolbox/aid'.
D
keep up the great work!
Thanks! We will as long as people love listening to us, we'll be here.
Sounds great, but please, please make it a reasonable price. For £20 I will be all over this. Any more and it risks failing to be the kickstart to the community it wants to be.
Chikout wrote: Sounds great, but please, please make it a reasonable price. For £20 I will be all over this. Any more and it risks failing to be the kickstart to the community it wants to be.
I'm gonna ballpark it at around the price of a Battletome, so like $58 USD?
Chikout wrote: Sounds great, but please, please make it a reasonable price. For £20 I will be all over this. Any more and it risks failing to be the kickstart to the community it wants to be.
I'm gonna ballpark it at around the price of a Battletome, so like $58 USD?
Not going to listen again right now but I thought Dan made reference to the price being cheap on the podcast. Think it's in line with GA books. Could be misremembering. Expecting it's an annually updated thing though, as new miniatures will always be coming out.
coldgaming wrote: Not going to listen again right now but I thought Dan made reference to the price being cheap on the podcast. Think it's in line with GA books.
That's a pretty broad range...
The cheapest Grand Alliance books(Death and Destruction) are $16.50 while the second most expensive(Chaos) is $33, and the most expensive(Order) is $35.
Comment on War of Sigmar wrote:...according to the local gw manager here in the uk, the managers can talk about it (!) and it will likely be £15. many were at hq the last few days reading through the drafts
Well this is certainly interesting. I honestly thought they were going to phone when it came to implementation, but a book priced right is far more then I expected.
Will they have the basic core "points" rules free like the regular rules are now? Will warscroll PDFs get updated with point values, or will it be just a list saying "this scroll costs this much" ?
Necros wrote: Will they have the basic core "points" rules free like the regular rules are now? Will warscroll PDFs get updated with point values, or will it be just a list saying "this scroll costs this much" ?
Those exact details aren't available yet.
Hoping they're on future podcasts from these guys (if they do know).
Necros wrote: Will they have the basic core "points" rules free like the regular rules are now? Will warscroll PDFs get updated with point values, or will it be just a list saying "this scroll costs this much" ?
At this point this is really my only area of concern. I sincerely hope that point values are not relegated to a physical text and are kept in digital (and easily updated) format.
The day before my birthday. Right lads, you know what to do!
I definitely would expect this and the Grand Alliance books to be part of an "essentials" range sort of thing, cheap and mass-produced, with the vague assumption that anyone who wants to to a book will start with those, even though they are not necessary.
Will the points & battleplans be added to the app, is perhaps the really interesting question. I would be very unsurprised by something like, "Points for units through 2016" being a micro-transaction for say a fiver, even as I hope for them to be freely accessible.
Chikout wrote: Veterannoob typing on a phone I think. There was a photo going around showing that if you remove the mohecan from the fyreslayers, they are exactly the same height as the 8th edition Dwarves. The models have certainly got bigger in Aos but I don't think the scale has. If next week does turn out to be new zombies, we should find out then. Failing that I am hopeful that the silver tower game will have regular humans.
Yeah, stupid iPhone hates me. But yes, you're right. And if that's not a typo and you meant Mohecan that's actually pretty cool But the base is crucial a 32mm base is higher off the ground than 20 or 25 dwarfs are on in some pics.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Something for everybody...excellent!
I've listened to the entire podcast. The main thing that struck me was that it doesn't seem like these guys will actually be involved in continued development of the game and points system. They basically got to come in for a one-day play session to meet the designers and give feedback on what GW had at the time and their thoughts about the whole process, but they certainly won't be using SCGT comp or any existing points system, and it won't be further developed by the community but by GW. I could be wrong but nothing I heard on the podcast indicated otherwise. It's obviously still a big deal that they even did this, but I like many others sort of assumed the points system and competitive side would be continuously developed along with the community. It could obviously be that they will be involved but can't talk about it.
One thing that really illustrated how different GWs thought process is to many GW gamers is Jervis thoughts on how Warhammer is about two "directors" meeting and creating a battle together. I thought of dakka when I heard that, and smiled :-D
Mymearan wrote: I've listened to the entire podcast. The main thing that struck me was that it doesn't seem like these guys will actually be involved in continued development of the game and points system. They basically got to come in for a one-day play session to meet the designers and give feedback on what GW had at the time and their thoughts about the whole process, but they certainly won't be using SCGT comp or any existing points system, and it won't be further developed by the community but by GW. I could be wrong but nothing I heard on the podcast indicated otherwise. It's obviously still a big deal that they even did this, but I like many others sort of assumed the points system and competitive side would be continuously developed along with the community. It could obviously be that they will be involved but can't talk about it.
One thing that really illustrated how different GWs thought process is to many GW gamers is Jervis thoughts on how Warhammer is about two "directors" meeting and creating a battle together. I thought of dakka when I heard that, and smiled :-D
yeah I'd hoped that this would have been the first of many meetings with various community members. I guess that may still happen, but this product needs as many outside eyes as possible on it while it is still in development especially from those a little more critical of AOS.
Necros wrote: Will they have the basic core "points" rules free like the regular rules are now? Will warscroll PDFs get updated with point values, or will it be just a list saying "this scroll costs this much" ?
I'd hazard a guess the latter. GW appear very clear just on the approach thus far that AoS will have 3 distinct play modes, points being a part of one of them. Updating warscrolls to include points would muddy the waters.
The Facebook page did say that rules will continue to be free so I imagine that the basic points will be available digitally in some way. So like before you buy the book for the battle plans, the campaigns and the convenience. If it is halfway decent I will probably bite at the £15 price point.
With 2000 pts being about a 2.5 hr battle,it sounds to me like they very well could be using the SDK formula,or something along those lines,which if true would be great
The main thing that struck me was that it doesn't seem like these guys will actually be involved in continued development of the game and points system. They basically got to come in for a one-day play session to meet the designers and give feedback on what GW had at the time and their thoughts about the whole process, but they certainly won't be using SCGT comp or any existing points system, and it won't be further developed by the community but by GW
I can't give details (yet), but - The visit was only one day, but there has been a lot of back and forth with email/calls etc over a period of time, GW have really been open/co-operative about this. Bear in mind various guys that are involved with the books their end are also solid tournament players, so its not guys that don't play writing this stuff to start with. This really is a 'new world' (or 'Age' maybe....).
The main thing that struck me was that it doesn't seem like these guys will actually be involved in continued development of the game and points system. They basically got to come in for a one-day play session to meet the designers and give feedback on what GW had at the time and their thoughts about the whole process, but they certainly won't be using SCGT comp or any existing points system, and it won't be further developed by the community but by GW
I can't give details (yet), but - The visit was only one day, but there has been a lot of back and forth with email/calls etc over a period of time, GW have really been open/co-operative about this. Bear in mind various guys that are involved with the books their end are also solid tournament players, so its not guys that don't play writing this stuff to start with. This really is a 'new world' (or 'Age' maybe....).
If the points are paper-only and thus never changing, this will result in the same kind of GW-points that we have been used to for the past couple decades - easily exploitable tournament meta that destroys a large chunk of the model range for not being "optimal"
I hope that whatever this system is is something that gets updated regularly as people bust it.
RiTides wrote: Hopefully some fine Dakkanaut will take size comparison pics compared to an Ork Boy / Nob / Warboss (or ideally all 3!) upon release . Could definitely make for some sweet conversions!
not quite what you asked for but this popped up on FB
wow that boss is huge!
I love the fact that the ironjawz seem to have moved away from the squat gorilla stance and seem to be more towards a normal walking stance.
ive been hoping for that for ages.
Hmm. You know, seeing that image, I might be coming around to the Brutes, it looks like almost all of the extra height is accounted for in the change of leg-style and the bulk by the big armour plates(which if I'm interpreting the sprues properly is reasonably optional if you're prepared to fill some holes on the pectorals).
The Warboss is still a no-go, since the armour is moulded right on to the figure and I hate that style.
As for this points thing - podcasts are literally one of the worst formats to convey information, I wish folk would just post the actual info as text that people can read quickly and easily and use the podcast format for what it's good at(ie opinion/banter/debate), rather than holding the info hostage to get people to listen to their shows.
Yodhrin wrote: podcasts are literally one of the worst formats to convey information, I wish folk would just post the actual info as text that people can read quickly and easily and use the podcast format for what it's good at(ie opinion/banter/debate), rather than holding the info hostage to get people to listen to their shows.
Uriels_Flame wrote: Everything seems to be getting a "heroic" up sizing, though GW minis were already bigger than most.
wasn't this disproven through some side by sides with bloodbound and fyreslayers vs older minis?
I thought that the general consensus was that they only seem bigger since they are no longer restricted to regimental static poses?
It was. But seems like nobody wants to admit it.
Now with the new pictures, are we certain there's no up sizing going on??? That boss is huge and I like it!
Uriels_Flame wrote: Everything seems to be getting a "heroic" up sizing, though GW minis were already bigger than most.
wasn't this disproven through some side by sides with bloodbound and fyreslayers vs older minis?
I thought that the general consensus was that they only seem bigger since they are no longer restricted to regimental static poses?
It was. But seems like nobody wants to admit it.
Now with the new pictures, are we certain there's no up sizing going on??? That boss is huge and I like it!
I can definitely see where you're coming from but I think that this might be a case of comparing apples and oranges.
if they had an old standard human next to a new standard human and the new model was bigger than i'd agree but this is a particularly nasty new brand of orc which should be bigger than standard orcs at least according to their fluff much like the stormcast should be bigger than their mortal followers.
now if you're saying that everything they are releasing lately is bigger than yes, id agree although with the caveat that it is all new stuff and it is things that should be bigger at least in the fluff.
again I refer to the fyreslayers... they are not physically taller although I can see the argument of them looking taller due to their bling...
As for this points thing - podcasts are literally one of the worst formats to convey information, I wish folk would just post the actual info as text that people can read quickly and easily and use the podcast format for what it's good at(ie opinion/banter/debate), rather than holding the info hostage to get people to listen to their shows.
Baddice was casting round on Twitter today for a transcription service with double-quick turnaround times, so you might not be waiting long...
The sizes of the brutes and Megaboss are just on target. Brutes are not ridiculous big and actually its just a change of leg style in comparison with Borcs and the MegaB is OTT big, just like the general of your orruk army should be.
I will insta buy this sunova If it has an acceptable Path of Glory campaign. Especially so if it also extends to other factions (with Gifts from their specific deities Gork and Mork, Tyrion, Allariele, Sigmar, etc)
And before you say it - I know it's unlikely, let me dream!
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: I will insta buy this sunova If it has an acceptable Path of Glory campaign. Especially so if it also extends to other factions (with Gifts from their specific deities Gork and Mork, Tyrion, Allariele, Sigmar, etc)
And before you say it - I know it's unlikely, let me dream!
that's what everyone said about points. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you
NAVARRO wrote: The sizes of the brutes and Megaboss are just on target. Brutes are not ridiculous big and actually its just a change of leg style in comparison with Borcs and the MegaB is OTT big, just like the general of your orruk army should be.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: I will insta buy this sunova If it has an acceptable Path of Glory campaign. Especially so if it also extends to other factions (with Gifts from their specific deities Gork and Mork, Tyrion, Allariele, Sigmar, etc)
And before you say it - I know it's unlikely, let me dream!
That would be cool. I never really understood why GW was obsessed with limiting the idea of 'small warband levels up' games to only Chaos; there are so many cool Human and Elf hero models that would cry out for this kind of thing!
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: So with a few people confirming a "Path of Glory" system... can someone explain that for those of us without experience with it?
I take it its some kind of RPG-progression-based, multi-game campaign?
Starting with a small warband and rolling on various charts for bonuses and adding to your retinue, getting more stuff as games go on and get bigger. Miniwargaming did an AoS path to glory series of battle reports, was better than their usual coverage I thought. I'm expecting similar in this general's handbook, really excited for that part.
Mymearan wrote: I've listened to the entire podcast. The main thing that struck me was that it doesn't seem like these guys will actually be involved in continued development of the game and points system. They basically got to come in for a one-day play session to meet the designers and give feedback on what GW had at the time and their thoughts about the whole process, but they certainly won't be using SCGT comp or any existing points system, and it won't be further developed by the community but by GW. I could be wrong but nothing I heard on the podcast indicated otherwise. It's obviously still a big deal that they even did this, but I like many others sort of assumed the points system and competitive side would be continuously developed along with the community. It could obviously be that they will be involved but can't talk about it.
One thing that really illustrated how different GWs thought process is to many GW gamers is Jervis thoughts on how Warhammer is about two "directors" meeting and creating a battle together. I thought of dakka when I heard that, and smiled :-D
Well since this is book format guess it was inevitable. Simple logistics takes time. This was probably started around november +-1 month and that's FAST project from start to release. Wonder if physical books have already started long sail from China?
For points for sure would have been most sensible to keep them in online format.
RiTides wrote: Hopefully some fine Dakkanaut will take size comparison pics compared to an Ork Boy / Nob / Warboss (or ideally all 3!) upon release . Could definitely make for some sweet conversions!
not quite what you asked for but this popped up on FB
Holy Gork! That guy will definitely be my new Warboss. I think I will arm him with a Klaw and twinlinked shoota, then I could use him either with 'eavy armor or megaarmor - I don't think anyone could argue against that.
usernamesareannoying wrote: wow that boss is huge!
I love the fact that the ironjawz seem to have moved away from the squat gorilla stance and seem to be more towards a normal walking stance.
ive been hoping for that for ages.
Yep, I've always hated the poo-pose and turkey neck on the older orcs...this is a vast improvement. Although Oldhammer orks (and goblins!) are equally awesome. It's just those Middlehammer plastic orks that look horrible.
Gotta find out how those Brutes stack up to the Ogre bulls.
That Path of Glory sound pretty cool. It's what I like about systems like Song of Blades & Heroes. Start with some basic mooks, and get them all sorts of bling and flash if they manage to survive.
Doubly so if it means I can limit the game to a much smaller number of figures (as we're all likely to have handfuls of models painted as opposed to giant armies).
That Path of Glory sound pretty cool. It's what I like about systems like Song of Blades & Heroes. Start with some basic mooks, and get them all sorts of bling and flash if they manage to survive.
Doubly so if it means I can limit the game to a much smaller number of figures (as we're all likely to have handfuls of models painted as opposed to giant armies).
Yeah PoG is fun way to start armies. Which is why it being chaos only was oddity. Okay so thematically it fits REALLY well for chaos but surely it can thematically work for others.
The Path to Glory ebook from the Advent Calendar is what turned my attention back to Age of Sigmar after having it wane in the post-release flurry of $75 books.
You pick a god and a champion and that sets how many choices you get on a few tables (based on chosen god) to build your warband.
After each game you can choose to either add a unit or buff existing ones. Your champion also gains power.
You're working to get 10 favor from your chosen god (by playing games) at which point your champion becomes a daemon prince and the first person to win a game with a DP wins the campaign.
The ebook also has a neat D66 name generator. I got bored at work one day and made a web app version.
Really excited about the possibility for similar stuff for non-Chaos factions.
That Path of Glory sound pretty cool. It's what I like about systems like Song of Blades & Heroes. Start with some basic mooks, and get them all sorts of bling and flash if they manage to survive.
Doubly so if it means I can limit the game to a much smaller number of figures (as we're all likely to have handfuls of models painted as opposed to giant armies).
Yeah PoG is fun way to start armies. Which is why it being chaos only was oddity. Okay so thematically it fits REALLY well for chaos but surely it can thematically work for others.
I am pretty sure that other deities do bless their chosen warriors. and you can always grant them the same bonus with different names - ranks, magical weapons, etc etc.
1) Those Brutes are cool, roughly Nob sized, I think? I thought they'd be bigger.
2) Their mass is not so great that I can swallow 5 being almost as expensive as 15 BlOrcs, though.
3) Boss Claw looks laughable.
4) I want, want, want that Megaboss, who is indeed MEGA. But that price.
Spoiler:
Looks lilke I'll have to sacrifice an IoB Rat Ogre to create my super muscular monstrous SAW-toting Kommando Ork with the brutes packing so much armour, anyway
Hmmmm.. I wonder now that i've seen more pics and 360s etc if using these Orruks and bits of them in 40k is actually viable then. D: That Mega-boss on Maw-Krusha looked like he'd make such an awesome Warboss at first for 40k but now seeing his armour and bareback it looks too primitive for regular 40k Orkz? D:
Alpharius wrote: I've got to admit - points and a 'Path to Glory' campaign have me taking another look at AoS...
Indeed, at this point I'm now ready to commit to AoS, which is exciting as this time last week I wouldn't have touched it with a barge pole.
This. For the longest time WHFB was my bread and butter and I would play 40k every once and a while, but not nearly as much as fantasy (I know I'm in the minority). Once AoS dropped, being the loya GW fanboy that I am, I bought the starter box (still sitting on sprues), and gave it a whirl with my existing models. While I actually thought the game mechanics were fun and fast paced, the lack of a point system really turned me off. I did an FLGS Azyr Comp campaign which was pretty fun, but again with existing models, and haven't touched AoS since, or bought a single new model. Before AoS, the vast majority of my hobby money went into Fantasy with a bit here and there into 40k. Now, I hardly buy anything.
With GW listening to our concerns and finally putting points out for this game, I think I'm ready to jump back into the fold and actually buy some new models as well. What I think GW missed out on with players like myself, is even if on only play a few times a year, still enjoy list building and coming up with fun new army combinations under a point limit. I'm glad I can do that again.
I'm actually getting more excited. It's actually not going to be a slapshod production. Confirmation from the SCGT guys that they were reached out to prior to this and that the guys writing the points/system play in tournaments and events is also good news.
I'm hoping it catches on. This would be the perfect middle game for me between WoK and KoW. It would also probably get played almost as much if not more than both.
Also interesting is the timing as this may not have been related to sales (it likely started only a couple months after release) but of, again, the change in leadership. Given the lead time for writing rules, communicating with the community, getting it together, getting it printed and then getting it shipped isn't a fast process.
Hulksmash wrote: Also interesting is the timing as this may not have been related to sales (it likely started only a couple months after release) but of, again, the change in leadership. Given the lead time for writing rules, communicating with the community, getting it together, getting it printed and then getting it shipped isn't a fast process.
Then again sales looked to be pretty bad right from the get-go...
But yeah something happened to make GW alter radically their plan unless they had idea to release this before game was even released!
It could also have been something that Roundtree started to push once he was made CEO and had the ability to shift certain aspects of AoS. There was no stopping the End Times and AoS when he took the reins but maybe this was something he started when he had actual control.
Just saying the actual printed materials, lead time, and amount of work that go into something like this means it likely wasn't a snap kick decision.
Hulksmash wrote: It could also have been something that Roundtree started to push once he was made CEO and had the ability to shift certain aspects of AoS. There was no stopping the End Times and AoS when he took the reins but maybe this was something he started when he had actual control.
Just saying the actual printed materials, lead time, and amount of work that go into something like this means it likely wasn't a snap kick decision.
True that. I would wager if it wasn't started working before release by the Roundree then it was started around november+-month(more likely sooner than later) and even then this would be damned fast project.
However by november sale numbers were fairly indicative. That's around the time the half year report that showed declining profits for core products DESPITE plastic horus heresy which sold like hot cakes had it's sales numbers settled. So there could be sales giving some extra incentive for Rountree to order extra quick book release.
Of course it IS possible Roundtree made this decision before AOS was even released which would make it less of extra quick release.
My strong hunch is that the community backlash about lack of points system, and subsequent abysmal launch sales let the air out of the proverbial whoopee cushion and prompted a hastily assembled team to create some actual competitive rules for the game. Average industry lead time on writing, design, and production of the printed products seem to fit this time line.
What bothers me is that GW have an abhorrent record of being able to create a balanced, competitive game system...(see the mess that is 40k at the moment.) With the time frame that we are talking about here, does anyone really think they were able to adequately play test and dial in all of the point values for the staggering number of units in all of the warscrolls? And assuming they did, has their internal playtesting efforts created a decent amount of internal or external balance in 40K?
Privateer Press has been working on re-balancing their game and units behind the scenes for at least the last 3 years,...and they arguably have much fewer available units/factions than Warhammer.
I remain cautiously optimistic, and will try this out when it launches...but if I was a betting man, I'd certainly not place money on this being a anything more than a band-aid applied to a sucking chest wound.
Now, lets see some more leaks on this supposed 'Warhammer Quest-like' board game....
Personally, my concern with tabletop games is that they have a semblance of balance.
Warmachine is one that has (what I would consider) exceptional balance, but honestly I probably am ambivalent on anything from great to reasonable in terms of how fair a game is. I feel that earlier editions of 40k (ie 4th and 5th), even with their notable imbalances, were balanced *enough* that people felt they had the chance to win (unless they picked purposely imbalanced armies). Starting around 6th 40k, it became more and more clear that concerns over balancing the game were set aside in attempts to extract more money from customers.
Same with AOS, the problem is determining what constituents a relatively balanced game is something altogether more complicated. You may be able to get people to agree on a comp, but then comps differ from area to area, etc. And I frankly don't have time in my schedule to spend negotiating how to play a tabletop game- it's hard enough just getting the couple of hours as it is!
AOS appealed to me because of the simple, relatively straightforward rules, but the lack of any balancing mechanisms within the game itself really ultimately decide against getting into it. And my interest in 40k has diminished greatly, with the focus of the game moved so heavily towards massive units (Knights and flyers), and I don't want to play Epic 40k. Now, AOS might actually become my go-to GW game if things pan out well, which is crazy because I would have never anticipated that even two weeks ago!
angelofvengeance wrote: Listening to The Beasts of Cartha, it makes mention of creatures called Crypt Flayers. They sound like a variant of ghouls/zombies.
Also makes mention of Ogors with large shields.. Don't think there's any like that at the moment, is there? As well as an Ogor 18ft tall...
Everything here sounds awesome so whatever it is I'll probably be happy.
coldgaming wrote: Not knowing any specifics about timelines, I think the idea with AoS was always to build onto the core 4 pages, as seen with the campaign books too.
Then why did they spend almost a year pushing HipsterHammer and claiming points were unwanted and unneeded in the Glorious AoS Future?
There's no way GW come out of this looking competent, sorry. Either this was a panic move they were forced into by terrible sales(and it's not actually as far-fetched as some are proposing, you can get printing done in Eastern Europe with a fairly low turnaround time, it's only the big runs from China that take ages, and if you recall the design studio pretty much pulled 3rd Ed 40K out of their arses at the last minute because management changed their plans), or it was their plan all along and they've spent the months since AoS launched intentionally alienating potential customers by insisting all the manky points-loving competitive sorts were unwelcome in their new Casual Narrative Paradise.
coldgaming wrote: Not knowing any specifics about timelines, I think the idea with AoS was always to build onto the core 4 pages, as seen with the campaign books too.
Then why did they spend almost a year pushing HipsterHammer and claiming points were unwanted and unneeded in the Glorious AoS Future?
There's no way GW come out of this looking competent, sorry. Either this was a panic move they were forced into by terrible sales(and it's not actually as far-fetched as some are proposing, you can get printing done in Eastern Europe with a fairly low turnaround time, it's only the big runs from China that take ages, and if you recall the design studio pretty much pulled 3rd Ed 40K out of their arses at the last minute because management changed their plans), or it was their plan all along and they've spent the months since AoS launched intentionally alienating potential customers by insisting all the manky points-loving competitive sorts were unwelcome in their new Casual Narrative Paradise.
What's your opinion of the theory that AoS was a product of King Kirby, and the resurrection of points being introduced by Rountree?
angelofvengeance wrote: Listening to The Beasts of Cartha, it makes mention of creatures called Crypt Flayers. They sound like a variant of ghouls/zombies.
Also makes mention of Ogors with large shields.. Don't think there's any like that at the moment, is there? As well as an Ogor 18ft tall...
or Ogor zombies you should listen fist of gork and mork.
coldgaming wrote: Not knowing any specifics about timelines, I think the idea with AoS was always to build onto the core 4 pages, as seen with the campaign books too.
Then why did they spend almost a year pushing HipsterHammer and claiming points were unwanted and unneeded in the Glorious AoS Future?
There's no way GW come out of this looking competent, sorry. Either this was a panic move they were forced into by terrible sales(and it's not actually as far-fetched as some are proposing, you can get printing done in Eastern Europe with a fairly low turnaround time, it's only the big runs from China that take ages, and if you recall the design studio pretty much pulled 3rd Ed 40K out of their arses at the last minute because management changed their plans), or it was their plan all along and they've spent the months since AoS launched intentionally alienating potential customers by insisting all the manky points-loving competitive sorts were unwelcome in their new Casual Narrative Paradise.
What's your opinion of the theory that AoS was a product of King Kirby, and the resurrection of points being introduced by Rountree?
Nonsense, all of these things take time to produce.
I'd suggest it far more plausible that a points/comp system was left out to allow the community/marketplace define the best fit/solution and then jump on board. GW will be painfully aware of the critics they have historically received on this. Plus there are a fair number of articles from the likes of Rick Preistley, Alessio Calvetore and Jervis Johnson that have all expoused their frustration at creatin what they see as working system that then get 10 page comp-packs bolted on.
Why else would there be such championing of the SGT/podcast interactions?
Nonsense, all of these things take time to produce.
I'd suggest it far more plausible that a points/comp system was left out to allow the community/marketplace define the best fit/solution and then jump on board. GW will be painfully aware of the critics they have historically received on this. Plus there are a fair number of articles from the likes of Rick Preistley, Alessio Calvetore and Jervis Johnson that have all expoused their frustration at creatin what they see as working system that then get 10 page comp-packs bolted on.
My guess is that points were left out because they thought it could just work in its original form. Their customers don't need that type of rules (all these collectors and painters who are willing to pay the increasingly luxurious prices that they focused on in their investor statements), and that there was no plan to co-opt a community made solution because there was supposedly no need for that.
Why else would there be such championing of the SGT/podcast interactions?
There are multiple rumours that AoS sales are below expectations and it could be that they are frantically adjusting and trying to improve the situation and latching on to one of the more popular community solution, hoping to get back some of the people who abandoned AoS with this initiative. I don't think it's about actually wanting to communicate with their customers or that the system is so great that they just had to adopt it but just them cynically hoping this could reel back some people. People are applauding them for this move (it really looks like they are trying) but I would rather wait and see if that will be a long term investment for them or if it will just be a short term thing that they drop whenever they feel they don't need it anymore.
That is the same company that more or less dropped an existing game and released a new, but somehow related, one with minimal advertisement and hoped to get better sales by some sort of brand loyalty magic. WHFB had some good stuff and some bad stuff. I think GW didn't know which was which and when they released AoS they again had a game with good and bad parts (without knowing which was which) but they were trying really hard to erase or minimize the connection to the old game for a tabula rasa effect, hoping that everybody would feel the need to buy all the new releases. But what they got was a blank slate in regard to customer loyalty and interest. Now they need to convince all these old (and disgruntled) customers who usually (but in declining numbers) grudgingly upgraded to a new WHFB version (which was still recognizable as the the same game) and bought some stuff to make their armies gaming legal to actually start buying and playing this new game.
Regarding Rountree. The most likely scenario was that he had a meeting to discuss strategy and actually listened to people in the studio and not just the sales and legal division.
Chikout wrote: Regarding Rountree. The most likely scenario was that he had a meeting to discuss strategy and actually listened to people in the studio and not just the sales and legal division.
Bingo!
He's a sound reasonable manager that respects the combined input of his staff and makes sound decisions based on a balance of them all plus consumer feedback (not the otoise kind mind you).
What bothers me is that GW have an abhorrent record of being able to create a balanced, competitive game system...(see the mess that is 40k at the moment.)
Uhm, what about Lord of the Rings? One of the best rule systems GW put out. With a small few tweaks I am surprised LotR/The Hobbit wasn't used or based for Age of Sigmar. Not complex, but lots of depth and strategy to be played.
Or Epic Armageddon which is still an amazing ruleset. GW can make good games and rules. It's been that that hasn't been the focus for so long we've forgotten that.
Hulksmash wrote: Or Epic Armageddon which is still an amazing ruleset. GW can make good games and rules. It's been that that hasn't been the focus for so long we've forgotten that.
Well that was largely influenced by fans so credit isn't fully to GW(or rather Jervis). He had the smart idea of outsourcing playtesting to players
GW just wrote on their Facebook page that the Megaboss was sculpted by everyone's favorite Ork sculptor, Brian Nelson. It was the first Orruk they made.
Mymearan wrote: GW just wrote on their Facebook page that the Megaboss was sculpted by everyone's favorite Ork sculptor, Brian Nelson. It was the first Orruk they made.
Hahahahahaaa!
There were at least two negative nellies who when the pics first came out were stating that the new Orruks were terrible, GW should only ever let Brian Nelson do Orcs as he "gets it".
via anonymous sources on Faeit 212 There will be a globel campaign for AoS coming up in a few weeks/months time.
It will have it's own website.
A living map.
All results will lead into the next book.
Details are still being finished.
A new start up section is coming for AoS with kits starting at £5 up.
On the finance front.
AoS is actually doing as well if not better then 40k in some areas.
There has been a decline in shop sales but with summer coming GW hope this should pick up.
Also.
No more leaks!
GW are going are no longer going to be holding back info.
You will know as soon as it happens.
PS: Outsourcing playtesting (snd even ruleswriting) is a POSITIVE in my book.
Edit: no leaks? Actuslly engaging custoners and getting them excited for your product? Allowing them to plan purchases?! Madness! Must be a Faeit rumor, sounds way too sensible.
Edit: no leaks? Actuslly engaging custoners and getting them excited for your product? Allowing them to plan purchases?! Madness! Must be a Faeit rumor, sounds way too sensible.
That really sounds too good to be true. Where are the Silver Tower official leaks!!
Based on them releasing information about forthcoming book through an unofficial podcast, the bit about loosening the leak policy doesn't seem too far fetched
coldgaming wrote: Not knowing any specifics about timelines, I think the idea with AoS was always to build onto the core 4 pages, as seen with the campaign books too.
Then why did they spend almost a year pushing HipsterHammer and claiming points were unwanted and unneeded in the Glorious AoS Future?
There's no way GW come out of this looking competent, sorry. Either this was a panic move they were forced into by terrible sales(and it's not actually as far-fetched as some are proposing, you can get printing done in Eastern Europe with a fairly low turnaround time, it's only the big runs from China that take ages, and if you recall the design studio pretty much pulled 3rd Ed 40K out of their arses at the last minute because management changed their plans), or it was their plan all along and they've spent the months since AoS launched intentionally alienating potential customers by insisting all the manky points-loving competitive sorts were unwelcome in their new Casual Narrative Paradise.
What's your opinion of the theory that AoS was a product of King Kirby, and the resurrection of points being introduced by Rountree?
It's possible, but I think there's a tendency to personify all GW's problems in Kirby and, by inverse implication, all their recent more positive rumblings as Rountree's doing, and I don't know that it's that simple. AoS pretty thoroughly embodies the kind of attitude on display in Jervis' forays into the public eye in recent years - was he following Kirby's line, or are the studio just genuine believers in that impractical "gentlemen's agreement" style of gaming? Is Rountree making the moves he's making because he genuinely thinks the company needs a new direction, or because he's reacting desperately to tanking revenue with a fairly scattergun approach? Realistically we can't tell until we're well past the transitional period(ie once we start seeing sprue dates on stuff that are from at least a year after Kirby left), and even then the real test of Rountree will be what he does if and when he turns things around - re-engaging with the community, more structure for AoS, event support etc etc are all great, but will they keep doing it if they return to growth? That will be when we know if Rountree has new ideas and wants to change the corporate culture, or if GW's current behaviour is just a ploy to bump up the next financial report.
I hope it's the former, but the years have taught me to be cynical.
coldgaming wrote: Not knowing any specifics about timelines, I think the idea with AoS was always to build onto the core 4 pages, as seen with the campaign books too.
Then why did they spend almost a year pushing HipsterHammer and claiming points were unwanted and unneeded in the Glorious AoS Future?
There's no way GW come out of this looking competent, sorry. Either this was a panic move they were forced into by terrible sales(and it's not actually as far-fetched as some are proposing, you can get printing done in Eastern Europe with a fairly low turnaround time, it's only the big runs from China that take ages, and if you recall the design studio pretty much pulled 3rd Ed 40K out of their arses at the last minute because management changed their plans), or it was their plan all along and they've spent the months since AoS launched intentionally alienating potential customers by insisting all the manky points-loving competitive sorts were unwelcome in their new Casual Narrative Paradise.
What's your opinion of the theory that AoS was a product of King Kirby, and the resurrection of points being introduced by Rountree?
It's possible, but I think there's a tendency to personify all GW's problems in Kirby and, by inverse implication, all their recent more positive rumblings as Rountree's doing, and I don't know that it's that simple. AoS pretty thoroughly embodies the kind of attitude on display in Jervis' forays into the public eye in recent years - was he following Kirby's line, or are the studio just genuine believers in that impractical "gentlemen's agreement" style of gaming? Is Rountree making the moves he's making because he genuinely thinks the company needs a new direction, or because he's reacting desperately to tanking revenue with a fairly scattergun approach? Realistically we can't tell until we're well past the transitional period(ie once we start seeing sprue dates on stuff that are from at least a year after Kirby left), and even then the real test of Rountree will be what he does if and when he turns things around - re-engaging with the community, more structure for AoS, event support etc etc are all great, but will they keep doing it if they return to growth? That will be when we know if Rountree has new ideas and wants to change the corporate culture, or if GW's current behaviour is just a ploy to bump up the next financial report.
I hope it's the former, but the years have taught me to be cynical.
I think that more than AoS, the way they address 40k in the next year or so will tell us (sort of) what the course for GW will be.
Mymearan wrote: GW just wrote on their Facebook page that the Megaboss was sculpted by everyone's favorite Ork sculptor, Brian Nelson. It was the first Orruk they made.
Chikout wrote: The Gwaos Facebook page staight up said that there will not be any more bloodbound stuff this year so next week's release will not be the khorgorath.
wow, that's interesting.
that leaves several models as exclusive to the starter set.
kind of surprising.
So all the smarter the decision to invest in the folks most dedicated to bridging Oldhammer with Nü.)
. Looking forward to seeing how you integrate the new big fellas with them 
?
