If the requirement isn't prefect balance, then why is AoS held to a different standard?
It's not. That's the point.
The points system in WHFB was flawed, but it at least gave a rough ballpark guide to establish a fair-ish game.
AoS doesn't even provide a semblance of balance. It just tells players to put whatever they want on the table. Any balancing has to come from the players figuring out for themselves how powerful everything is.
If you can't see the difference between building a set of shelves from a flatpack with badly translated instructions, and building a set of shelves from a tree, I'm not really sure what to to tell you.
JohnHwangDD wrote: @Vakathi - so points will automatically prevent curbstomp battles in 40k? How does that Possesed - Mutiliator - Defiler force of yours do on the tabletop against equal points of Imperial Knights? Fair battles every time, right?
Points systems don't solve everything, nobody is claiming they can. However, they are a major feature in solving many issues. They're usually also paired with some sort of army structure composition that limits what types of units and capabilities you can bring.
If the requirement isn't prefect balance, then why is AoS held to a different standard?
Because has literally none of the structures that games typically use. Not points, not army structures, or anything else. There's no resource management at all.
Nobody has shown any basis for explaining why the mk.1 eyeball is any worse than a points system, especially when employed by such experienced players as you all hold yourselves to be.
Veteran players looking to have a balanced game might be able to hash it out themselves. That said, not everyone has the same idea of balance even amongst veteran players, and points values and army constructs act as a mutually agreed upon 3rd party to handle this, cutting down on the argumentation. They also made it hard for people that just wanted to win at all costs, if you have to present an army list with tabulated points that an opponent can look over, it's harder to bring a force that will just curb-stomp everything.
And if we're talking newbies, or people that are just looking to get away with whatever they can, AoS does nothing to resolve these issues.
Your Chaos vs Gobbo example is a good example of the mk.1 eyeball at work. You're saying it would actually come up on the tabletop among players trying for a "fair" game? Really?
Probably not, as it was an intentionally exaggerated example, however not all *that* far fetched. Using GW's own event rules, add three dozen extra Goblins and another Shaman, replace the Knights with Warriors, and you don't really change the outcome, but it's entirely something you could run into.
There's a reason games, and really most things, try to minimize reliance on the mk1 eyeball, because its efficacy is wildly variable and highly subjective.
If a 55-45 advantage is OK in Chess (and assuming equal ratings), why isn't it OK in AoS? You're saying you have no ability to eyeball armies within 10%? Yet you just pulled that Chaos v Gobbo thing out your ass?
AoS lacks the "neutral third party" that army structure rules and points costs offer, the "GM in a box" if you will. Again, even with veteran players, perceptions and biases can vary wildly, and with newer players or those that just don't care, the lack or points and army structure open up all sorts of room for bad experiences that otherwise wouldn't need to have happened.
And, ultimately, having a points system doesn't hurt the people that don't want to use it. There's a reason every tabletop mini's game uses a points system in some form or fashion.
The WK is overpriced against fodder, and you know it. That's why you rattled off a list of superior units. And it's why the WK isn't free.
What fodder are we talking about? a hundred Grots? A bunch of naked Rhinos? Sure, in that case, ok. Against equivalent points in Tac marines? not at all. I'd take WK against 20 Tac marines. Even if we assume weenier vehicle units, like say, TLLC Razorbacks, the WK will slay through equivalent points in razorbacks far more efficiently than they will slay the WK back, even on a points comparison basis.
The units I listed were generally units that filled a similar role & purpose and that the WK might usually be expected to prioritize and that would prioritize the WK, as like to like as is possible, not fodder which would generally not be engaging the WK (and in many cases would be incapable of hurting the WK) and the WK wouldn't typically be tasked with engaging itself.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Sudden Death is no worse a balancing mechanism than points.
Until AoS did away with points, there was never the vehemency with which people demanded points to be there.
This is a somewhat absurd argument, a non-sequiter "whatabout"-ism, as a "demand" for a points system was simply so fundamental to miniatures game as to just be a matter of course. The argument wasn't made because it wasn't one that needed to be made, the points system was there and fundamental to the way the game played.
Bottle wrote: If you're still new to the game try playing much smaller games with a few warscrolls each side. Play the IGOUGO deployment method and try and match each unit being deployed (e.g. Player 1 deploys a unit of 5 light cavalry, player 2 deploys a similar unit, player 1 deploys a war machine, player 2 does too, etc)
And if the two players don't have 'similar' units?
Cook up a list with a soft counter or like minded unit for each of your opponent's.
As above.
And that is going to rely on you actually being familiar enough with your opponent's units and what they can do to match them fairly. It's not a system that is at all accessible for new players.
We're talking for complete beginners here, like Crashgordon who seem unwilling to put stuff on the table top and give it a try. If that's really too much for them, then the starter set has set orders of battle for each scenario.
8th was a Johnny/Spike game, and AoS is a Timmy game. I am a complete and utter Timmy, with a sprinkling of Johnny (I enjoy synergies and combos). My main goal is to have a fun few hours with great-looking models on great-looking terrain with a friend. Although winning is fun, it's not really a focus for me. The most important thing is that we both have fun. Whether or not points are used doesn't really matter that much, because even using points, if I know my army is disproportionately strong, which requires detailed knowledge of the ins and outs of the points system, I will deliberately and gladly handicap myself to make the game more fun for most of us (example: I run a Footdar army in 40k with the Avatar, not a jet bike or Wraith unit in sight, and my artillery uses the worst weapon option. I've never had as much fun as I do with that army). If I'm winning a game, I will sometimes play a bit worse on purpose just to make the game more exciting. I love crazy units, randomness and narrative. I am the kind of player who loves AoS. If you think I sound like a crazy person, you probably won't like AoS. I initially hated the idea of points being gone, but the more I think about it, the better it is. The competitive community was always going to do a way better job than GW, and now they have a blank canvas to realize their perfect vision of balance. To those who say "GW are just lazy, and should focus on better balancing", I say "Yes they should, but they never will. So this is the better option by far". When I am in the mood for balance, I will use one of those systems. Now having played without points, I find it to be a lot of fun. It requires a very loose attitude towards the game, a willingness to compromise and a very Timmy mindset of prioritizing the spectacle of the overall game over the competitive aspect. Obviously Johnny and Spike will hate it, and that's completely understandable, just like he says in the video. They have been hoodwinked and their game has done a complete 180. They're angry and that's fine. It's your loss and our gain, which sucks for you, but don't count on it changing any time soon. Either the Timmys of the world will unite and make AoS a success, or they won't and Warhammer Fantasy will be completely gone.
jonolikespie wrote: Ok I think I've found a new objection to AoS, or rather a new way to state my objection to the no points thing.
I have 0 interest in collecting a faction, I want to build an army. I want a cool, fluffy, army based around a good theme, like the above shadow warriors example. I have no interest in the rest of the high elf faction, nor do I have any interest in painting tons of extra models. I want to set myself a limit, build an army to that limit, and then convert and paint everything to a high standard without buying or painting a single model more than I need to.
While I could probably do that with the comp systems the community has established with the actual rules as published by Games Workshop this seems completely at odds with that.
Age of Sigmar is perfect for this. It is designed for themed army collecting. The set-up rules for Age of Sigmar are bespoke to the game you are playing.
Sqorgar wrote: You can play wildly unbalanced games of AoS and still have fun
I call BS again, curbstomping isn't fun unless you're a WAAC jerk and getting curbstomped isn't fun period.
...
@Roper: Since I'm not familiar with the actual examples I was mainly trying to read into the general thought process.
So basically it's plonking down a unit at a time according to what you think will be effective at the mission at hand, trying to size up how effective against the units they're putting down.
I can sort of understand the logic, but the brick wall I keep slamming into is that I don't really have a good idea how potent my unit is without a points value. I can make a guess that say, my Ravenwing Black Knights are badasses since they're fast, shooty, choppy and really really durable (basically a shooting weapon needs to have Ignores Cover AND AP3 or better to stand a good chance at hurting them) amongst other things and I can suspect they could be really handy at a particular mission but without ponts values or something similar I'm not really sure how many to plonk down.
I'd disgree - I've played some games where I *knew* I was likely going to get curbstomped - the enjoyment came from trying to figure out avoiding it.
To really muddy the waters, another game I played recently, Stormcast V Stormcast.
My opponent had a far larger collection than me, and could have matched me exactly.
Instead, by the time we kicked off, models-wise he outnumbered me by 25%ish, wounds by about a 3rd, and warscrolls by about a fifth.
So by *any* of the current comp systems, I was generously outnumbered.
The trigger condition was 75% casualties on one side, which turned out to be his.
The scenario even mentioned that the attacking player (me) was likely to struggle.
I won, but missed out on a major victory because I misread one of the victory conditions.
This is why I find it difficult to explain my concept of 'balance', because from my own experience even a numerically greater or more powerful/elite army.doesn't guarantee anything.
I take the point of not understanding the power of units - that only comes from using them - but I've also played plenty of games where the flow of battle by the start of turn 3 didn't reflect the end result.
That's why I have no truck with comp systems - because in the games I've lost, it's not been about model count, it's been about not picking the right tools for the job.
Which is why I'm coming to the conclusion that with self-balancing games, you either can or you can't. There's no implication about intelligence, experience or ability intended by that statement, either.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It happens in all games with points though, although I'm going to use 40K as an example.
A fully upgraded vanguard assault squad can easily be countered by a minimum sized grav-cannon devastator squad if terrain and movement are used correctly, despite points value indicating otherwise.
Similarly, against an Ogre army, my Decimators aren't even with considering if I've got Liberators I can deploy.
But if I'm facing big units of 1W infantry, they'll be the first thing I take.
If anything, points give you a measure of potency within the framework of your own force, because they can't take the opposition into account.
jonolikespie wrote: Ok I think I've found a new objection to AoS, or rather a new way to state my objection to the no points thing.
I have 0 interest in collecting a faction, I want to build an army. I want a cool, fluffy, army based around a good theme, like the above shadow warriors example. I have no interest in the rest of the high elf faction, nor do I have any interest in painting tons of extra models. I want to set myself a limit, build an army to that limit, and then convert and paint everything to a high standard without buying or painting a single model more than I need to.
While I could probably do that with the comp systems the community has established with the actual rules as published by Games Workshop this seems completely at odds with that.
Age of Sigmar is perfect for this. It is designed for themed army collecting. The set-up rules for Age of Sigmar are bespoke to the game you are playing.
I've actually got a fledgling idea for an 'evil forest' army. Treemen, dryads, spiders, hounds, ghosts, etc.
I can absolutely put together a cross-faction theme force, but like any army construction based on fluff rather than efficiency I'll have to bear in mind that a) my units may not interact as well because a lot of abilities are in-faction, and b) as a result of this my 'per model' effectiveness will likely be lower than an dedicated faction force, so I will generally need to take more. I'll also likely be unable to reasonably expect to win some games because I have discounted certain toolbox abilities because of my own wants.
To use a WMH example, it's be like taking a jack-heavy menoth force but no choir. You can still win with it, but you're hamstringing yourself in comparison to someone using units together well.
Legitimate question here but can the game really work if I wanted to say build a fluffy list using say, the shadow warriors, as a theme? If I decide I want the Shadow King, 30 shadow warriors and 10 Ellyrian reavers converted to look like mounted shadow warriors and that is what I brought to a FLGS for a game, would that even work?
Well, let's have a look. Let us suppose you went down to the FLGS with that force and met me.
After saying that is an awesome idea for a force (because it is!), my first thought would be to suggest we play The Trap Battleplan, with you as the ambusher, as it fits right in with how your force is supposed to operate. I have brought my Bloodbound, so the Khorne guys have obviously blundered into your territory with delusions of murdering everyone, and they have run into you. An entire town of Aelfs depends on you stopping them!
Doing this very roughly, you have a little under 60 Wounds in your force, I know from experience that your Reavers will be a royal pain, and the The Trap scenario gives you some ungody advantages at the start. So, the Bloodbound should take a few more models than usual and, on paper, should look like they have the advantage.
The only real tactical concerns I would have would be a) missile fire is going to be nasty in turns one and two, and b) your Reavers will be hard to catch.
So, I would plonk down two units of 20 Bloodreavers (meatshields), backed up by a Bloodsecreator and probably a Bloodstoker, just in case they have a chance to be effective (!). A unit of Skullcrushers goes down next (six of them) to both give archers something difficult to destroy plus they bring a little mobility to the Bloodbound. Blood Warriors next, two units of 10 - or maybe one unit of them, and one of Skullreapers, depending on what I had brought with me.
Add a Mighty Lord of Khorne (maybe on a Juggernaut, maybe not, again, depending on what models had been brought - the latter is slightly harder but is likely to be in a position to get targeted, so will probably be the lesser option!), and reserve the right to use the Legions of Chaos rule (bring in a unit or three of daemons mid-game - maybe), and I think we would be all set.
I believe anyone familiar with AoS would think that is a good set up for a game - it will be absolutely vicious, you will have the feeling of a small, elite force battling against incredible odds, but it will be a fair game,
In reality, all that would have taken a couple of minutes on the day.
Legitimate question here but can the game really work if I wanted to say build a fluffy list using say, the shadow warriors, as a theme? If I decide I want the Shadow King, 30 shadow warriors and 10 Ellyrian reavers converted to look like mounted shadow warriors and that is what I brought to a FLGS for a game, would that even work?
Well, let's have a look. Let us suppose you went down to the FLGS with that force and met me.
After saying that is an awesome idea for a force (because it is!), my first thought would be to suggest we play The Trap Battleplan, with you as the ambusher, as it fits right in with how your force is supposed to operate. I have brought my Bloodbound, so the Khorne guys have obviously blundered into your territory with delusions of murdering everyone, and they have run into you. An entire town of Aelfs depends on you stopping them!
Doing this very roughly, you have a little under 60 Wounds in your force, I know from experience that your Reavers will be a royal pain, and the The Trap scenario gives you some ungody advantages at the start. So, the Bloodbound should take a few more models than usual and, on paper, should look like they have the advantage.
The only real tactical concerns I would have would be a) missile fire is going to be nasty in turns one and two, and b) your Reavers will be hard to catch.
So, I would plonk down two units of 20 Bloodreavers (meatshields), backed up by a Bloodsecreator and probably a Bloodstoker, just in case they have a chance to be effective (!). A unit of Skullcrushers goes down next (six of them) to both give archers something difficult to destroy plus they bring a little mobility to the Bloodbound. Blood Warriors next, two units of 10 - or maybe one unit of them, and one of Skullreapers, depending on what I had brought with me.
Add a Mighty Lord of Khorne (maybe on a Juggernaut, maybe not, again, depending on what models had been brought - the latter is slightly harder but is likely to be in a position to get targeted, so will probably be the lesser option!), and reserve the right to use the Legions of Chaos rule (bring in a unit or three of daemons mid-game - maybe), and I think we would be all set.
I believe anyone familiar with AoS would think that is a good set up for a game - it will be absolutely vicious, you will have the feeling of a small, elite force battling against incredible odds, but it will be a fair game,
In reality, all that would have taken a couple of minutes on the day.
So, when are we playing?
That sounds pretty great, and like a very fun scenario to play. But that seems like something you could never expect a couple of inexperienced players to come up with together. I'm also curious where the Trap battleplan comes from, it isn't part of the freely available rules I am aware of.
Legitimate question here but can the game really work if I wanted to say build a fluffy list using say, the shadow warriors, as a theme? If I decide I want the Shadow King, 30 shadow warriors and 10 Ellyrian reavers converted to look like mounted shadow warriors and that is what I brought to a FLGS for a game, would that even work?
Well, let's have a look. Let us suppose you went down to the FLGS with that force and met me.
After saying that is an awesome idea for a force (because it is!), my first thought would be to suggest we play The Trap Battleplan, with you as the ambusher, as it fits right in with how your force is supposed to operate. I have brought my Bloodbound, so the Khorne guys have obviously blundered into your territory with delusions of murdering everyone, and they have run into you. An entire town of Aelfs depends on you stopping them!
Doing this very roughly, you have a little under 60 Wounds in your force, I know from experience that your Reavers will be a royal pain, and the The Trap scenario gives you some ungody advantages at the start. So, the Bloodbound should take a few more models than usual and, on paper, should look like they have the advantage.
The only real tactical concerns I would have would be a) missile fire is going to be nasty in turns one and two, and b) your Reavers will be hard to catch.
So, I would plonk down two units of 20 Bloodreavers (meatshields), backed up by a Bloodsecreator and probably a Bloodstoker, just in case they have a chance to be effective (!). A unit of Skullcrushers goes down next (six of them) to both give archers something difficult to destroy plus they bring a little mobility to the Bloodbound. Blood Warriors next, two units of 10 - or maybe one unit of them, and one of Skullreapers, depending on what I had brought with me.
Add a Mighty Lord of Khorne (maybe on a Juggernaut, maybe not, again, depending on what models had been brought - the latter is slightly harder but is likely to be in a position to get targeted, so will probably be the lesser option!), and reserve the right to use the Legions of Chaos rule (bring in a unit or three of daemons mid-game - maybe), and I think we would be all set.
I believe anyone familiar with AoS would think that is a good set up for a game - it will be absolutely vicious, you will have the feeling of a small, elite force battling against incredible odds, but it will be a fair game,
In reality, all that would have taken a couple of minutes on the day.
So, when are we playing?
That sounds pretty great, and like a very fun scenario to play. But that seems like something you could never expect a couple of inexperienced players to come up with together. I'm also curious where the Trap battleplan comes from, it isn't part of the freely available rules I am aware of.
You need to pay for that little scenario, dude, or have someone who has already purchased the book fill you in on the scenario.
Did you forget this is GW we're talking about? tsk tsk
jonolikespie wrote: That sounds pretty great, and like a very fun scenario to play. But that seems like something you could never expect a couple of inexperienced players to come up with together. I'm also curious where the Trap battleplan comes from, it isn't part of the freely available rules I am aware of.
I was pretty inexperienced when the starter set first came out However, going through the starter set scenarios gives you a very good idea of how the Stormcast and Bloodbound balance out, and having played Aelfs just once, I know the power of their bows and what a pain Reavers are.
Honestly, once you have had a few games, this really does become second nature. I guess the core 'challenge' to this is understanding/believing/accepting that things do not have to be exact, and that a few models either way really is not going to matter (it gets less acute the bigger your force). There is no great 'inner wisdom' at work, but you will soon get into the flow if you put that shadow force together. AoS really is perfect for armies like that (one of my mates is looking at doing an all Clan Eshin force, for example - not only viable in AoS, it will - frankly - rock!).
The Trap is in the first hardback and yes, it is not part of the free rules. This is part of what I have been saying all along, the core rules are just an intro, and you are not really getting the full effect unless you bring the Battleplans and Time of War sheets into the mix as well - that is where AoS really starts to shine.
You can see that in the example I gave - we could have just set up a bunch of models up on opposite sides of the table, had a fight, and gone home. You seem like a gent, so we would have had a good time.
However, instead we played a game with a decent narrative (plucky elite defenders protecting their village against a superior force), with a scenario that fitted your force perfectly, and we would have had a great time.
That is what AoS encourages and delivers.
Put another way, this is why everyone who seems to be an AoS fanboy is telling you to give it a try - it really can be that good
You can see that in the example I gave - we could have just set up a bunch of models up on opposite sides of the table, had a fight, and gone home. You seem like a gent, so we would have had a good time.
However, instead we played a game with a decent narrative (plucky elite defenders protecting their village against a superior force), with a scenario that fitted your force perfectly, and we would have had a great time.
That is what AoS encourages and delivers.
Put another way, this is why everyone who seems to be an AoS fanboy is telling you to give it a try - it really can be that good
Just to throw this in - nothing of what you're saying couldn't already be done with WHFB. Yet this is heralded like the Second Coming...
Just to throw this in - nothing of what you're saying couldn't already be done with WHFB.
You are absolutely right - but, as I said in the OP, most people did not play that way. They stuck strictly to points-based games.
The difference is in what each game encourages players to do. You can do anything you want with any game, but they tend to have 'defaults' that lead you down a certain path and the majority of players will go down that path. That is what AoS has removed/changed from WHFB.
Please note, I am not saying it is better. I still play 8e. I have just found AoS naturally leads us down areas that, in several years of 8e, we did not touch.
I don't think it is a fear of losing, although for some players it could be. Instead, I think it is a fear of lacking control. This entire conversation of late has been about "what if the other player doesn't agree", "what if I have to make compromises", or "what if my army has no chance against this other one". People don't want to lose, obviously, but more than anything, they don't want losing to be something they can't control.
Like you could make a perfectly balanced game. Two identical sides, but at the end of round 4, you rolled a die for each surviving unit and decided the game with it. The game is completely fair (even the dice roll) and completely balanced, but I suspect such a game would drive people nuts in exactly the same manner as AoS for exactly the same reasons. In all but the most one sided games, the victory would essentially be more random than not. It's not losing that's a problem, but the lack of "justice". The better player "deserves" to win, and that being out of anybody's control makes the game frustrating and a bit scary.
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a game like that, but I suspect a lot of people would.
Just to throw this in - nothing of what you're saying couldn't already be done with WHFB.
You are absolutely right - but, as I said in the OP, most people did not play that way. They stuck strictly to points-based games.
The difference is in what each game encourages players to do. You can do anything you want with any game, but they tend to have 'defaults' that lead you down a certain path and the majority of players will go down that path. That is what AoS has removed/changed from WHFB.
Please note, I am not saying it is better. I still play 8e. I have just found AoS naturally leads us down areas that, in several years of 8e, we did not touch.
And that is all I am saying
I will agree that AoS encourages exactly the opposite that 8ed (and previouseditions) did.
And do remember that people stuck to pts-based games because they desired to play it pts-based - they could just as well ignore pts and army restrictions.
However, GW finally decided this was not how they wanted their customer base to use their glorious miniatures, so they turned the tables around and shafted a good % of their customer base.
8th edition for me like its predecessors was largely pitched battle tournament standard 24/7. It got really really really old.
That may be one reason why I like AoS better, besides the fact I don't have to memorize another thick rulebook and FAQ... because AoS encourages a larger variety of scenarios and builds.
Legitimate question here but can the game really work if I wanted to say build a fluffy list using say, the shadow warriors, as a theme? If I decide I want the Shadow King, 30 shadow warriors and 10 Ellyrian reavers converted to look like mounted shadow warriors and that is what I brought to a FLGS for a game, would that even work?
Well, let's have a look. Let us suppose you went down to the FLGS with that force and met me.
After saying that is an awesome idea for a force (because it is!), my first thought would be to suggest we play The Trap Battleplan, with you as the ambusher, as it fits right in with how your force is supposed to operate. I have brought my Bloodbound, so the Khorne guys have obviously blundered into your territory with delusions of murdering everyone, and they have run into you. An entire town of Aelfs depends on you stopping them!
Doing this very roughly, you have a little under 60 Wounds in your force, I know from experience that your Reavers will be a royal pain, and the The Trap scenario gives you some ungody advantages at the start. So, the Bloodbound should take a few more models than usual and, on paper, should look like they have the advantage.
The only real tactical concerns I would have would be a) missile fire is going to be nasty in turns one and two, and b) your Reavers will be hard to catch.
So, I would plonk down two units of 20 Bloodreavers (meatshields), backed up by a Bloodsecreator and probably a Bloodstoker, just in case they have a chance to be effective (!). A unit of Skullcrushers goes down next (six of them) to both give archers something difficult to destroy plus they bring a little mobility to the Bloodbound. Blood Warriors next, two units of 10 - or maybe one unit of them, and one of Skullreapers, depending on what I had brought with me.
Add a Mighty Lord of Khorne (maybe on a Juggernaut, maybe not, again, depending on what models had been brought - the latter is slightly harder but is likely to be in a position to get targeted, so will probably be the lesser option!), and reserve the right to use the Legions of Chaos rule (bring in a unit or three of daemons mid-game - maybe), and I think we would be all set.
I believe anyone familiar with AoS would think that is a good set up for a game - it will be absolutely vicious, you will have the feeling of a small, elite force battling against incredible odds, but it will be a fair game,
In reality, all that would have taken a couple of minutes on the day.
So, when are we playing?
That sounds pretty great, and like a very fun scenario to play. But that seems like something you could never expect a couple of inexperienced players to come up with together. I'm also curious where the Trap battleplan comes from, it isn't part of the freely available rules I am aware of.
You can purchase it as a micro transaction from the app, or buy the book suppliment it comes from.
For players really inexperienced there are the starter scenarios. I do agree that GW should do more to help players progress from those starter scenarios though. A couple of free scenarios on the webstore would go a long way, as would bringing back battle reports (maybe for Warhammer TV) to show how the game can be played.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And Matt, that game sounds totally awesome! I would love to have an opponent like yourself. I'm going to start playing with Battleplans in future.
auticus wrote: 8th edition for me like its predecessors was largely pitched battle tournament standard 24/7. It got really really really old.
That may be one reason why I like AoS better, besides the fact I don't have to memorize another thick rulebook and FAQ... because AoS encourages a larger variety of scenarios and builds.
Pitched battle 24/7 was indeed yawn-worthy, no doubt there!
With all due respect... the second statement - isn't it a bit contradictory? True that there's no thick rulebook (well... actually there are two at the moment, with a third one incoming) but a larger variety of scenarios and builds to memorize... more to memorize?
Honestly, it's not difficult to make a quick battleplan out of the void (it's just a scenario, in fact ). It's not like their rules are highly novative or perfectly balanced. Any gamer with some experience with GW games can do that without difficulty.
So you don't really need to buy anything if that's really what's stopping you.
In reality, I believe that's the best way to actually balance the game; by making a scenario/battleplan in accord to the armies brought by players, this is how you have games of legends you will remember for a long time.
AoS is somewhat a "sandbox game". You should be using it as such, IMHO.
With all due respect... the second statement - isn't it a bit contradictory? There's no thick rulebook (well actually there are two at the moment, with a third one incoming) and a larger variety of scenarios and builds to memorize.
If you aren't playing scenario X, you don't need to remember the rules to scenario X. So you don't need to memorize all of them because you don't use them all at the same time. Contrast this to Warmachine where my group, which has collectively played a thousand games of Warmachine, still needs to look up core rules in the 80 page book at least once a game.
Bottle wrote: I do agree that GW should do more to help players progress from those starter scenarios though.
Agree with this 100% - and I thought the first hardback would be packed full of ideas, suggestions and comments on how to approach the actual game. I get why they went the direction they did (works for me!), but Jono is obviously an experienced player but is not gelling with this direction. Perfect example right there of how/why GW should be lending this extra support. Jono wants awesome games but feels he only has half the tools thus far.
On the other hand, I have half an idea that us going through this with him, saying 'hey, you could get a really awesome game just by doing X, Y, and Z' was part of GW's plan (in that it comes better from other players than themselves). But I cannot back that up
Bottle wrote: as would bringing back battle reports (maybe for Warhammer TV) to show how the game can be played.
I can be pretty sure this will never happen. Many moons ago, I did one of the White Dwarf battle reports with Andy Chambers (I forget which issue, Black Templars vs. Orks, just after the Armageddon campaign), and I saw how much effort it took - there are several Man Days tied up in each and every battle report, it really is staggering. To do that on idea, with the kind of polish GW would want (compare their painting guides with others on Youtube - that extra 10% is everything and takes the most work) would take monumental resources. I don't think even GW could do that on a regular basis.
Yes, I was hoping the big books would be akin to the Dungeon Masters Guide for D&D with tons of neat ideas and guides for campaigns and games. Maybe GW will address this in the future.
Maybe published battle reports that come free in the Warhammer app? Haha
This is going off topic, but I do think GW have lost lots of the guiding materials new players used to have. Mainly White Dwarf, which used to show players what they could aspire to in every aspect (collecting, painting and gaming).
auticus wrote: 8th edition for me like its predecessors was largely pitched battle tournament standard 24/7. It got really really really old.
That may be one reason why I like AoS better, besides the fact I don't have to memorize another thick rulebook and FAQ... because AoS encourages a larger variety of scenarios and builds.
Pitched battle 24/7 was indeed yawn-worthy, no doubt there!
With all due respect... the second statement - isn't it a bit contradictory? True that there's no thick rulebook (well... actually there are two at the moment, with a third one incoming) but a larger variety of scenarios and builds to memorize... more to memorize?
I find that having to have the book open to the scenario we're on is easy. Having to memorize 120 or so pages of rules, some of which are contradictory, was a chore. Added to the issue is that I had 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th in my brain so was constantly crossing wires!
Multiple scenarios I don't think is that way because when you're playing you're just playing one of those scenarios, and you just have to read a page or two and then keep the book on that page during game as opposed to flipping back and forth in the big rulebook trying to find some obscure rule you know exists that you read the other night but cannot find because its in the corner of page 46 in an area not logical to where it should be
auticus wrote: 8th edition for me like its predecessors was largely pitched battle tournament standard 24/7. It got really really really old.
That may be one reason why I like AoS better, besides the fact I don't have to memorize another thick rulebook and FAQ... because AoS encourages a larger variety of scenarios and builds.
Pitched battle 24/7 was indeed yawn-worthy, no doubt there!
With all due respect... the second statement - isn't it a bit contradictory? True that there's no thick rulebook (well... actually there are two at the moment, with a third one incoming) but a larger variety of scenarios and builds to memorize... more to memorize?
I find that having to have the book open to the scenario we're on is easy. Having to memorize 120 or so pages of rules, some of which are contradictory, was a chore. Added to the issue is that I had 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th in my brain so was constantly crossing wires!
Multiple scenarios I don't think is that way because when you're playing you're just playing one of those scenarios, and you just have to read a page or two and then keep the book on that page during game as opposed to flipping back and forth in the big rulebook trying to find some obscure rule you know exists that you read the other night but cannot find because its in the corner of page 46 in an area not logical to where it should be
Well then, if you're choosing not to memorize... definitely you won't have to memorize more! More power to you
You need to take into consideration movement, armor, weapon damage etc. as well.
There are a lot of examples of models with the same wounds as other models that are vastly inferior due to the above considerations which are not counted.
Wound count is fast and easy which is why I feel its used so often, but as a proper balancing mechanism it is quite poor.
Bottle wrote:
This is going off topic, but I do think GW have lost lots of the guiding materials new players used to have. Mainly White Dwarf, which used to show players what they could aspire to in every aspect (collecting, painting and gaming).
I think part of the grand experiment with AoS is that GW is purposely not making declarations on how to play it. I think they are leaving it up to the community to decide the best way to use the tools they provide. I know this irritates some people to no end, but the fact is, it does appear to be working to some extent. Slowly.
I think GW just takes pictures of their models in exciting scenes, daring the player to figure out how to recreate them in game.
auticus wrote:
Wound count is fast and easy which is why I feel its used so often, but as a proper balancing mechanism it is quite poor.
I think that if you move away from the idea of "balance" and instead aim for creating experiences, picking a good thematic scenario and similar wound counts is enough.
Bottle wrote:
This is going off topic, but I do think GW have lost lots of the guiding materials new players used to have. Mainly White Dwarf, which used to show players what they could aspire to in every aspect (collecting, painting and gaming).
I think part of the grand experiment with AoS is that GW is purposely not making declarations on how to play it. I think they are leaving it up to the community to decide the best way to use the tools they provide. I know this irritates some people to no end, but the fact is, it does appear to be working to some extent. Slowly.
I think GW just takes pictures of their models in exciting scenes, daring the player to figure out how to recreate them in game.
auticus wrote:
Wound count is fast and easy which is why I feel its used so often, but as a proper balancing mechanism it is quite poor.
I think that if you move away from the idea of "balance" and instead aim for creating experiences, picking a good thematic scenario and similar wound counts is enough.
I did just see a post Azyr Comp program, so it does look like the community is trying to make some balance. I have not seen the program myself, but it does look like players are trying and taking feedback.
I think that if you move away from the idea of "balance" and instead aim for creating experiences, picking a good thematic scenario and similar wound counts is enough.
While certainly valid, I know speaking just for me that if I'm going to play a game I want to know that I haven't lost or won the game before it even began.
I don't like playing games that are very one sided or stacked for one side to win/lose before the game even begins, and thats where lack of balance comes into play.
A serious if odd looking question. When those saying points are what are needed for a 'balanced game' what are they meaning? In my experience points do little to provide a balanced game.
There are about 6 or 7 local players I semi regularly play this sort of game with, and a large difference in skill across that group. If we came with X point each then the chance of a 'balanced game' is almost zero. If I go to a GW event (as I have in the past) I hit the same problem. If I want a good close game (i.e. balanced) then knowing your opponent and adjusting accordingly is a must, be that extra troops or some extra scenario condition. E.g. In my last game of Maurice (points based game) I switched from defender to attacker, even though he was supposed to be the attacker, as I know the guy I was playing is far more comfortable playing defense than attack and I'd get a more balanced and better game as a result. Over 5 years of playing Federation Commander in points based games I won about 95% of all games, the best and most exciting games tended to be campaign games where I was fighting at a big disadvantage.
That is why any game with points are so often flawed, who exactly are you pointing for? Who is the mythical 'average' or 'good tourney' player to use as our reference point (which ever is your standard for pointing)? I've had this argument in other games where some unit is considered OP or UP by some but not (or even opposite) by others. In most cases it is down to experience etc, Do you point around the top tourney players opinions, cos they are somehow seen to know what they are on about or around the majority cos, well they are the majority. Both sets of players will see things differently.
Star fleet battles is older than warhammer by a long way, and uses points, and yet the tourney scene doesn't use the normal ships as they are not 'balanced'. They came up with a very limited selection of ships without using points just for tourney use. Of course all these years later still debate whether X ship needs Y extra component etc.
The primary use of points as far as I can tell is to provide a way for competitive (as in tourney style) players to choose two armies that are supposedly equal when played between two equal players, then play in a tourney for the purpose of 'winning' the tourney and showing off your supposed skill. The idea being that having ruled out 'unequal' armies it must be your skill that got you the win. That, however, is not the same as having a 'balanced game' as far as I can tell.
Any game with force multipliers is a mare to point. What would we point skaven troops at, the units get stronger the more models there are, and stronger in the presence of other units like the heroes. The Heroes in themselves are not awesome, but when combined with other stuff are a lot better. Do you have some complex combination matrix or come up with a 1 size fits all value. Games without force multipliers are a lot easier, KOW is like that (or was the last time I played it) where even wizards were largely just fancy missile troops. It also why I thought it was a bit bland. Don't get me wrong I like KOW and would play it over WarHammer, but it felt like it was missing something to make it stand out from just an historical wargame. it was AOS that made me realize that I miss the synergy between say a wizard and boosting units etc. AOS has that in spades.
The two things I liked about AOS as soon as I read it was the lack of points and the lack of comp. I knew the points would be controversial, even among those I play with. As for comp, the whole army list thing is one of the reasons I stopped playing warhammer, I'm a gamer not a min collector. I like playing with minis, but dislike being expected to spend money and time buying, making and painting all those masses of minis that I don't really care much for, hence I never played it as much as I wanted (back when I was interested). I can enjoy getting/making/painting the minis I do really like (which are invariably the old special and rares) so a game that starts with that premise is awesome IMO - buy and play with the stuff you want, no more buying boxes of boring troops. Whilst I'd play with some formal 'balancing' system if someone really insisted I can't see me ever going back to a comp system that requires I have certain minis.
I look for a more general feel of balance. I don't need precision balance, and I think precision balance is quite frankly impossible to achieve.
I just want a general feel of balance to exist.
Part of tournament warhammer is to create a list that is as unbalanced as you can legally produce, so yes points by themselves are very poor at achieving balance.
Vash108 wrote: I had heard people are going by total wound count for models before. Did that ever pan out to anything resembling balance?
It is good as a starting point. It gives you a 'feel' of how the forces will match up. However, be prepared to adjust if elites or hordes start popping up, adjusting down and up respectively. If someone puts 30 1-Wound peasants on the table, 15 2-wound knights are going to be a bit much. But ten will probably be fine.
I think balance really only works with players of similar skill. Take Warmachine. The points don't work, like, at all. Two random armies of equal points have almost zero chance of being perfectly balanced against each other. But once you've played a few (hundred) games and start learning how the game works, then you know how to manipulate those points to create the best armies possible. And between two equal points armies created to be the best possible, balance can be achieved.
In other words, points only work for the players in that broad middle part of the bell curve, being roughly average and neither exceptional nor terrible. I think most people would agree with that. However, I think I disagree with how board that tip of the bell curve is, and I think it applies to a LOT fewer people than it would seem, and the people who it doesn't apply to simply go play something else. Points are a self fulfilling prophecy. They are good at one thing, so only the people who like that one thing stick around.
Sqorgar wrote: I think balance really only works with players of similar skill. Take Warmachine. The points don't work, like, at all. Two random armies of equal points have almost zero chance of being perfectly balanced against each other. But once you've played a few (hundred) games and start learning how the game works, then you know how to manipulate those points to create the best armies possible. And between two equal points armies created to be the best possible, balance can be achieved.
In other words, points only work for the players in that broad middle part of the bell curve, being roughly average and neither exceptional nor terrible. I think most people would agree with that. However, I think I disagree with how board that tip of the bell curve is, and I think it applies to a LOT fewer people than it would seem, and the people who it doesn't apply to simply go play something else. Points are a self fulfilling prophecy. They are good at one thing, so only the people who like that one thing stick around.
No, I don't agree with that. what points give me as a player is a framework to pick up a game. One of the biggest strengths of GW games was they were universal. If I was out of town I can play a pickup game or travel to enter a tourney. It's points that give that. I stopped playing tourneys years ago, but I can no longer just grab a pickup game and have any idea how it will turn out.
I think AoS is playable, but it's more like an RPG now, it takes a lot of time with just one player to find a middle ground that works. It's not really a pickup or casual game anymore, nor does it work with tournaments.
There's a very thin margin of players the game appeals too, and for those players it's really a great game.
I also disagree with the idea that points appeal to a very small margin of gamers, if that were true I would have seen games with no points. Even with imbalanced and thematic fights like from the generals compendium points were still used. (rules like the attacker gets more points, or his units recycle, campeign play allows one side to have 250 more points then another, etc.)
I've played wargames for 20 years now and I've never played a game that didn't have points or army structure of some sort, so I would say it's fair to assume this is a new idea. (or old idea from what I hear from the historical gamers.)
puree wrote: A serious if odd looking question. When those saying points are what are needed for a 'balanced game' what are they meaning? In my experience points do little to provide a balanced game.
They're not perfect, but no single mechanism can be either. However, what they do, particularly in conjunction with some sort of army construction framework (like the old FoC in 40k or Fantasy's Lords/Heros/Core/Special/Rare) is effectively give players a rough baseline that can act basically as a neutral 3rd party, a "GM in a Box", that allows players to build armies with some sort of coherence and structure, and help ensure at least a minimum level of sanity with respect to a balance gap and that players are fielding armies of a roughly similar scale. This greatly enhances the functionality of a game for pickup play and organized events like leagues or tournaments, in that it vastly cuts down on the negotiation and possible butthurt before each game without needing a 3rd party GM present at every game.
They're obviously not perfect, and very plainly often have major problems with execution and implementation, but there's a reason that points systems are a universal mechanic for tabletop wargames.
Yes, there are nebulous areas and vagueness associated with points systems, a lot of it is "feel", but they do broadly give at least some comparable level of value even if they don't encapsulate every possible dimension of capability.
I've played wargames for 20 years now and I've never played a game that didn't have points or army structure of some sort, so I would say it's fair to assume this is a new idea. (or old idea from what I hear from the historical gamers.)
Its not a new idea for sure - I started in the 80s in historicals and there were no points. You typically had game masters write scenarios and those would dictate to you what you took. Then I got into battle tech and there were no points, though people started using tonnage as an equalizer, though it was a poor equalizer.
I didn't play with any form of points until the mid 90s.
I've played wargames for 20 years now and I've never played a game that didn't have points or army structure of some sort, so I would say it's fair to assume this is a new idea. (or old idea from what I hear from the historical gamers.)
Its not a new idea for sure - I started in the 80s in historicals and there were no points. You typically had game masters write scenarios and those would dictate to you what you took. Then I got into battle tech and there were no points, though people started using tonnage as an equalizer, though it was a poor equalizer.
BattleTech eventually did have points ("Combat Values" and "Battle Values"), but they also had lots of scenarios that very explicitly spelled out precisely what forces would be present (e.g. player One has an Atlas, two Urbanmech's, a Crusader, and lance of Bushwackers, player Two has a Kodiak, two Mad Cats, a Puma and an Adder). I think that's what's being missed, is that most of these other games that don't have points values typically very clearly spell out exactly what forces to use, as opposed to AoS which just says "take whatever".
I've played wargames for 20 years now and I've never played a game that didn't have points or army structure of some sort, so I would say it's fair to assume this is a new idea. (or old idea from what I hear from the historical gamers.)
Its not a new idea for sure - I started in the 80s in historicals and there were no points. You typically had game masters write scenarios and those would dictate to you what you took. Then I got into battle tech and there were no points, though people started using tonnage as an equalizer, though it was a poor equalizer.
I didn't play with any form of points until the mid 90s.
I forgot about battletech, we would balance with light, two med and a heavy.
and even the rogue trader days of GW were loose on points, there was just too much of a spread in cost.
I just feel that despite flaws, points allow for casual and pickup games to have a frame of reference. now when I go out of town it is a crapshoot. does the local club use "known" house rules or one of the top ten comp lists? do they only play in a deep campaign? do they just RAW and hope for the best?
In WHFB points made it work like a restaurant chain. from coast to coast the menu was the same. now its like a specialty restaurant thats different in each club/area/region. I'm not saying one is better then the other, but casual, fun pick up games against new opponents is not really accessible with AoS. Its a much more "hardcore" RPG style game that takes many games within a group or same opponents to make it work on any level.
I work a lot and can only play once a month or so, so that really adds to any decision to collect and play AoS.
pox wrote:
There's a very thin margin of players the game appeals too, and for those players it's really a great game.
I agree with everything here except "very thin". Wargaming is a VERY small community of less than a dozen popular games (less than a half dozen?) that are so similar. And each wargaming basically cannibalizes players from other games rather than bringing in new players (possible exception: X-Wing Miniatures). The typical path to wargaming for most people, from what I've seen, is that they start with 40k until GW pisses them off, then moves to Warmachine/Infinity/KoW/Whatever. In other words, it is a very inbred community filled with largely the same types of players from the same socioeconomic background, with similar likes and dislikes.
So yeah, I'd say that of the players that are currently into wargaming, AoS may appeal to a rather small subset, but of the set of potential players, I think AoS could be MORE appealing than point systems.
I also disagree with the idea that points appeal to a very small margin of gamers, if that were true I would have seen games with no points. Even with imbalanced and thematic fights like from the generals compendium points were still used. (rules like the attacker gets more points, or his units recycle, campeign play allows one side to have 250 more points then another, etc.)
I've played wargames for 20 years now and I've never played a game that didn't have points or army structure of some sort, so I would say it's fair to assume this is a new idea. (or old idea from what I hear from the historical gamers.)
Personally, I came to miniatures from a complicated background. I started with video games and collectible card games (no points). I got into Warmachine (points) a long time ago from a comic book convention. Once my kids were born and I couldn't dedicate time to the hobby, I put Warmachine on the backburner, but still played miniature heavy games like Descent (scenarios), BattleLore (scenarios), Monsterpocalypse (one monster, 15 units, up to 12 buildings), and Dust Tactics (only one with points). So while I was aware that points existed, the large majority of the miniature-type games I played were scenario based or featured army composition rules that didn't use points (like BattleLore's Call to Arms expansion). I do not find points to be a comfortable standard at all.
I think points are added to games when the games develop a competitive tournament scene though. Wings of War didn't have points, but X-Wing Miniatures is a remake of Wings of War that adds points. Descent and Descent 2E don't have points, but when the remake in Imperial Assault added a skirmish mode, it added points. BattleLore didn't have points, but BattleLore 2E does. You might look at this as an example of how popular point systems are, but in all three of these cases, the games became more collectible as well.
I guess what my point was is that I have a lot of time to paint and model, but my game time is limited. After many AoS games, the limiting factor of not being able to "pick up and play" may be what kills it for me. If there is no "offical" structure to play the game then this has to be negotiated, and so far my experience is that is both time-consuming and not enjoyable.
I am a casual gamer, I don't need to win, I don't like tournaments, but without any cohesive structure I can't just grab my gear on Saturday and head to the shop.
One of our local guys now calls it the rules phase of the game, it's what comes before deployment. plus the lack of points means it is just a mental exercise, there is no "winning," hence the idea that its more like playing inquisitor but without a GM.
Wether they are good or bad points makes that easier. Even CCG have balancing factors and deck building requirements.
pox wrote: I guess what my point was is that I have a lot of time to paint and model, but my game time is limited. After many AoS games, the limiting factor of not being able to "pick up and play" may be what kills it for me. If there is no "offical" structure to play the game then this has to be negotiated, and so far my experience is that is both time-consuming and not enjoyable.
I am a casual gamer, I don't need to win, I don't like tournaments, but without any cohesive structure I can't just grab my gear on Saturday and head to the shop.
One of our local guys now calls it the rules phase of the game, it's what comes before deployment. plus the lack of points means it is just a mental exercise, there is no "winning," hence the idea that its more like playing inquisitor but without a GM.
Wether they are good or bad points makes that easier. Even CCG have balancing factors and deck building requirements.
Exactly. There's always some form of "resource management".
With Magic, typically you have to have a deck of 60 cards minimum, and no more than 4 of any one card (aside from Lands) and various other restrictions typically as well. Even wwith video games, you usually have more direct resource management for strategy games, an infantryman may be 50 credits, a battle tank 800 credits, etc. Points are basically another "resource" in that sense that provides structure to the game.
With Magic, typically you have to have a deck of 60 cards minimum, and no more than 4 of any one card (aside from Lands) and various other restrictions typically as well. Even wwith video games, you usually have more direct resource management for strategy games, an infantryman may be 50 credits, a battle tank 800 credits, etc. Points are basically another "resource" in that sense that provides structure to the game.
And AoS has wounds, warscrolls, keywords, models, battalions, realm rules, and scenarios. It's just that there isn't ONE final resource that all other resources bow down to. If you want to limit it by one (or more) resource, you can - you aren't beholden to one way of doing things. If you want to say, bring 10 warscrolls at minimum population (no more than one monster + one hero), 100 or less models, player with fewest wounds get +1 to initiative rolls, plan on these 4 scenarios with these 3 Time of War rules, you can. You can put together a game structure in seconds, and generally speaking, most of the games will be close enough in power that it will be a fun game.
And it should be said, scenarios are the base standard by which the army building is done. AoS isn't a giant mosh pit in the middle unless you make it so. A lot of the scenarios are quite varied and will greatly affect what a balanced army will look like. Again, Age of Sigmar is not a competition, player to player, army to army, to see who is the best. It is about creating experiences where the players compete against each other, objective to objective, goal to goal.
With Magic, typically you have to have a deck of 60 cards minimum, and no more than 4 of any one card (aside from Lands) and various other restrictions typically as well. Even wwith video games, you usually have more direct resource management for strategy games, an infantryman may be 50 credits, a battle tank 800 credits, etc. Points are basically another "resource" in that sense that provides structure to the game.
And AoS has wounds, warscrolls, keywords, models, battalions, realm rules, and scenarios.
Most of which don't provide anything near the same structure. Wounds are just a model characteristic, their use as any sort of balance mechanism is worthless. Warscrolls are just unit stats, much like the card text on a Magic card. AoS's scenario's usually offer very little in the way of structure beyond "the player with the least models gets X". These aren't really the same thing.
It's just that there isn't ONE final resource that all other resources bow down to. If you want to limit it by one (or more) resource, you can - you aren't beholden to one way of doing things. If you want to say, bring 10 warscrolls at minimum population (no more than one monster + one hero), 100 or less models, player with fewest wounds get +1 to initiative rolls, plan on these 4 scenarios with these 3 Time of War rules, you can. You can put together a game structure in seconds, and generally speaking, most of the games will be close enough in power that it will be a fun game.
Even with that, that allows for *way* more variability in power level than there should be, and has far more things to explicitly keep track of than the old "2500pts, standard force allocation" did.
10 warscrolls with 100 or less models could mean 90 Chaos Knights vs 95 Goblins. There's no inherent "weight" to any of these factors, 10 warscrolls and 100 models could be 100 Ogres, 100 Chaos Knights, or 100 Goblins.
There's basically nothing in any of this that accounts for the fact that a Chaos Knight is dramatically superior to a Goblin.
And it should be said, scenarios are the base standard by which the army building is done. AoS isn't a giant mosh pit in the middle unless you make it so. A lot of the scenarios are quite varied and will greatly affect what a balanced army will look like. Again, Age of Sigmar is not a competition, player to player, army to army, to see who is the best. It is about creating experiences where the players compete against each other, objective to objective, goal to goal.
And where this falls down is that it provides very little information for that. Most games that typically have gone this route will specify what forces are present. If you look at something like BattleTech, old Rogue Trader/original fantasy stuff, or Historicals, they'll very clearly lay out in detail exactly what forces will be present, whereas AoS for the most part just says "bring what you want, whoever has more wounds or less models gets X bonus" or something.
I think balance really only works with players of similar skill. Take Warmachine. The points don't work, like, at all. Two random armies of equal points have almost zero chance of being perfectly balanced against each other.
I think you are being deliberately misleading in your argument.
In warmachine, points do work. You cannot simply make the claim you make without factoring in the synergy-based gameplay and the other structural components around which the game is built and balanced (active duty roster, 2 or 3 list events, steamroller, scenarios, the assassination win condition etc). You can’t base an argument on ‘random armies’ when the game isn’t based around that. Which is precisely the red herring you are trying to present here. In other words, you are being dishonest. Points are simply the starting point. Your statement falls apart quite readily under any serious scrutiny.
Points work by pricing the relative value of the pieces. These can be determined via stats, availabilities and other constant factors. Which can be measured within the framework of the game. How you use them is the variable you are trying to ascribe directly to points to prove they don’t work. When clearly, it is far more complicated than you’d like it to be. And let’s be fair here – sometimes designers get it wrong, this can leads to imbalance. Like any tool, you can use it wrong. But this is just as true for a game where points are not used and ‘just eyeball it’ is the metric for assigning balance. And in both cases, if there are problems – you suffer for a while, you acknowledge the issue, and then deal with it, via errata or redesign etc.
As to your point, I have very rarely found myself unable to do anything with my armies in warmachine. It’s a very rare unit that is utterly unfieldable or is so utterly worthless as to be wthout value. Thanks to PP’s very clever use of soft counters (generally speaking, most things are capable of killing most other things) and hard counters, along with dual win conditions (scenario and assassination) means I have very, very rarely found myself completely out of a game. Often, when I’ve lost, and I look back on the game after, I can point to one or two areas where if I’d done x instead of y, it would have been a completely different story, rather than 'it was my army!'.
Skill should be a thing. if one player uses his army better, then frankly, he deserves to win. Otherwise you are dealing with a situation akin to snakes and ladders, where experience counts for nothing.
And it’s quite disheartening for someone who has played for years to have a fifty-fifty chance lose to a noob- it makes all that time and effort count for nothing. This basically gives no value to the concepts of ‘improvement’ and makes ‘getting better’ pointless. I am a long distance runner. I do marathons ‘for fun’. And if all that time and all that effort I put in, and all my experience I’ve earned counted for nothing in terms of my ability to do what I do, then the whole thing is utterly pointless. Wargames are no different. In other words, long term value is reduced and eliminated by eliminating skill as a feature. No thanks.
But once you've played a few (hundred) games and start learning how the game works, then you know how to manipulate those points to create the best armies possible. And between two equal points armies created to be the best possible, balance can be achieved.
So in other words, once you’ve learned the game, and know what you are doing with your pieces, you have a fighting chance. To be fair, the ‘eyeballing things’ approach you champion is just as prone to error, bias, confusion, mismanagement and abuse. And while rewarding, it often requires a lot of work, organisation and foresight to get it right. Matt here talks a good talk, but he is a professional games designer for example. This is what he does. Remember that.
In other words, points only work for the players in that broad middle part of the bell curve, being roughly average and neither exceptional nor terrible. I think most people would agree with that. However, I think I disagree with how board that tip of the bell curve is, and I think it applies to a LOT fewer people than it would seem, and the people who it doesn't apply to simply go play something else.
Or else the learn how to play. You know, they improve, they learn how things work, they build on their experiences. And then when that match up comes again, they hold their own.
Points are a self fulfilling prophecy. They are good at one thing, so only the people who like that one thing stick around.
Here you go again. Misleading arguments backed up by a confirmation bias. Points are a very useful structural tool. They allow you to assign value to units, and whatever else. But you can’t use them exclusively. In the same way, you can’t build a house with only a hammer. Now, replace ‘points’ with other structural tools like ‘unit caps’, ‘scenario objectives’, ‘ terrain layouts’ etc and its just as true a statement. The simple fact is, no one tool provides balance all on its own. The biased. narrow and skewed narrative that you are constantly pushing – ‘points are bad,m’kay; they don’t work – eyeballing things is better just because’, along with your constant dismissive and condescending jabs towards people who want, or prefer something different along with your refusal to accept anything of value from that very same different point of view is just as destructive and just as naïve to the hobby and our community as the extreme end of argument on the other side – that points are an infallible be-all and end-all. And its not the first time I’ve called you out on this.
Sqorgar wrote: I think balance really only works with players of similar skill. Take Warmachine. The points don't work, like, at all. Two random armies of equal points have almost zero chance of being perfectly balanced against each other. But once you've played a few (hundred) games and start learning how the game works, then you know how to manipulate those points to create the best armies possible. And between two equal points armies created to be the best possible, balance can be achieved.
Vaktathi wrote: Even with that, that allows for *way* more variability in power level than there should be...
Should be? Based on what metric? Can you not think of two units from a game with points system with similar points but "way" more variability in power level? I mean, in Warmachine, the difference between a character jack that you can only field one of and a normal run of the mill jack with less functionality might be one point.
10 warscrolls with 100 or less models could mean 90 Chaos Knights vs 95 Goblins. There's no inherent "weight" to any of these factors, 10 warscrolls and 100 models could be 100 Ogres, 100 Chaos Knights, or 100 Goblins.
There's basically nothing in any of this that accounts for the fact that a Chaos Knight is dramatically superior to a Goblin.
Well, let's look at this. You wouldn't want to create a unit of 20 Chaos Knights because they get no bonuses for larger units and the unit cohesion rules and melee-only range would make it difficult to maneuver and be as effective as they could. So if you have 10 units of 10 figures, you'd have the most effective army of 100 Chaos Warriors - and you'd use up all ten of your available warscroll slots.
Goblins, if geared for ranged, can be a pretty good ranged unit. At 40+ models, they get +2 to hit, which means they have a 16" range, hit on 3+, wound on 5+. Since models don't block line of sight to its own unit, having a large number of models in a unit does not adversely affect it. So if you had two units or 40 goblins, you'd have an insane threat range and ability to inflict damage, and you've only used up two warscrolls. The remaining twenty models can be heroes, monsters, wizards, or meat shields to protect the archers. With a Goblin Shaman casting Sneaky Stabbin, they get a bonus to wound rolls and rend. So diversifying can really make a difference.
Geared for melee, even with the bonuses, the Goblins really only have reach on the Chaos Warriors, meaning they'd get more models into melee range, but Chaos Warriors roll three attacks and have three wounds, so they are essentially worth three melee Goblins. But Goblin Warboss's command ability adds 1 to bravery and 1 to attack count for all melee weapons. With proper maneuvering, you could potentially surround a unit of Chaos Warriors, getting all 40 hits in with reach, hitting twice each, with stats equivalent to the ensorcelled weapons. So while the Goblins are not equal, stat for stat, to Chaos Warriors, when taken with Goblin units that support them, they become situationally pretty good.
I get what you are saying and that is, given some limitation, being able to spam great units is going to be a lot better than fielding a group of middling units. But I think that's unfair because the synergies matter the most, so you are going to want to diversify your warscrolls to maximize your options rather than spam a single type of unit, and in doing so, just by virtue of there being minimum requirements for a warscroll, you are going to fill up that 100 models with a bunch of different models, some great, some good, some situationally amazing.
Bottle wrote: Tbh, I not fussed for points with or without. The only important thing for me is total unbound is a must.
Here here, I heartily concur. It's the one thing going for AoS, there's been so many times I've made a themed list and not had the proper unit types to represent what I need. Need to add your version of a magic war beast like Saint Celestant? Use demon prince rules! Have an idea for goblins riding a war elephant? use a thundertusk or stonehorn as a counts-as.
Want to make a dwarven golem themed list? use whatever monstrous creature rules match the model concept!
It's especially good in AoS, as model synergy rules typically only affect units within the same force.I really like playing unbound in 40K, and even there the lack of scoring units helps the balance.
I made some wargame rules up about 40 years ago after being taken to some show and seeing all these awesome wargames being played on big tables. At the time, like many boys in the UK, airfix soldiers and models were a major part of my life and suddenly I was presented with the spectacle of watching all these grown men playing with proper rules (they even painted all those figures, wow!). I went home and wrote down what I could remember of the rules I was hearing and made the rest up. There were no points. Wellington and Napoleon didn't arrange a 2000pt battle, and neither did wargamers back then.
Not long later I found an airfix wargame rule book in the school library and then more sophisticated rule sets in other libraries. I don't remember (maybe wrongly) those having points either. It was never an issue, we either agreed to sort of re-create a specific battle, or to just slap down your 15mm French vs my Spanish etc. The rules tended to cover how you played not what forces you played with. Even as kids we could agree when someone was using far more than the other and make some adjustment (e.g. you have the better force so I get to defend the river), or just accept the challenge. Then you start finding that many historical games use army lists if you want a proper historical feel. As kids that tended to get ignored as we didn't have the dosh to be buying all the units for a list based army (and wanted to buy what we liked most anyway) so you played with what you had.
My first game I actually remember with points was either warhammer or D&D battlesystem as they came out, I don't remember which. I was heavily into RPG by then so fantasy plus wargame seemed awesome sauce. Naturally a lot of time was spent by us teenagers breaking the point system. But hardly ever playing games using points (again, no one had the figures to actually be worrying about that, if we were lucky and every one could bring a unit or 2 then the whole game club could maybe get a decent battle in).
On the one hand I can understand the desire to have some sort of balancing system built in to a game for random pick up games, on the other if I don't have the experience to see whether I need to adjust my AOS game for a balanced game then I will be in the same boat with a point system. The points will never account for player ability never mind be that accurate anyway in a system that has interactions that can only be seen when we see what each player has to field. Equally if I have the experience to know what adjustments to make to get a balanced game that uses points then I don't need the points in the first place. I also struggle with the idea that grown ups can't quickly work out what looks like a good game and get on with it. If the discussion goes on longer than you'd think is good then it is likely you'd rather not play that person anyway even in a points based game.
Hanging around GW shops over the years I still see that in terms of true newcomers to the game not a lot has changed since I was young. Despite the complaints about GW prices kids seem to have far more figures than we ever did, but they still just seem to play with what they have (often more than 1 person per side to help beef up the forces) and probably not even a remotely 'legal' army. Having a collection to actually worry about points and army lists and the like is still in future for them. AOS is perfect for that type of game. At some point they start to get into the whole points thing, but I don't believe that is because the have an inherent desire for such a system but just because that was the (warhammer) rules for armies. I don't believe that youngsters have changed so much since I was one that they need a point system. Discussing and agreeing the game you are about to play, a cool reason as to why and what forces there are and some victory condition, as we had to do when I was young, will probably do more to get new young players into a game than a rather souless mechanical point system. As for the time it takes to discuss I expect it will be less time for those teens I see who are using points. By the time they are that stage of pointing their games at least one of them will often then have to sit down and redesign his force as the other kid has less points in his bag, or they never had a list ready to go. I've certainly seen people spend what seemed like longer pointing forces than playing the game they just agreed to have on a table that has freed up. Slapping their figures down and discussing on the fly would probably be a lot quicker, whilst offering a chance to build some immersion into the game you are about to play.
Sqorgar wrote: I think balance really only works with players of similar skill. Take Warmachine. The points don't work, like, at all. Two random armies of equal points have almost zero chance of being perfectly balanced against each other. But once you've played a few (hundred) games and start learning how the game works, then you know how to manipulate those points to create the best armies possible. And between two equal points armies created to be the best possible, balance can be achieved.
You cannot simply make the claim you make without factoring in the synergy-based gameplay and the other structural components around which the game is built and balanced (active duty roster, 2 or 3 list events, steamroller, scenarios, the assassination win condition etc). You can’t base an argument on ‘random armies’ when the game isn’t based around that. Which is precisely the red herring you are trying to present here. In other words, you are being dishonest. Points are simply the starting point. Your statement falls apart quite readily under any serious scrutiny.
Then what do points represent? Couldn't you just as easily replace them with "pick a warcaster, two warjacks, two units, and two solos", and wouldn't it be just as "balanced", if points are just a base line starting point for the real balancing? And isn't that what AoS kinda does?
Points work by pricing the relative value of the pieces.
Except they don't because the actual value of each model CHANGES depending on what the other models in the game are. A unit of Mechanithralls are generally kind of sucky, and their points reflect that, but when paired with a Necrosurgeon (can resurrect them) and Terminus (gives them tough), they become significantly better. Like play a 15 point game with Terminus, three groups of mechanithralls, and two necrosurgeons - unless you design your team to specifically counter this combination of units, there's a high likelihood that you will be curbstomped when all your units are engaged and can't move against 26 units that are tough to kill and come back from the dead.
So the points are less important than the synergies, and you have to design your armies around the synergies you will face. There's a thread in the PP forums right now where someone suggested that if people could only bring one list to tournaments, would people bring more general purpose armies. Last I checked, the general consensus is that it would just lead to nothing but skew lists as people rolled the dice, knowing that most of the time, they'll win against a balanced army and if they were lucky, they wouldn't be paired up against the one or two skew lists that could counter them. How does that sound like a balanced game to you? A game in which bringing a balanced list will likely prevent you from winning.
Here you go again. Misleading arguments backed up by a confirmation bias. Points are a very useful structural tool. They allow you to assign value to units, and whatever else. But you can’t use them exclusively. In the same way, you can’t build a house with only a hammer. Now, replace ‘points’ with other structural tools like ‘unit caps’, ‘scenario objectives’, ‘ terrain layouts’ etc and its just as true a statement. The simple fact is, no one tool provides balance all on its own.
Okay, if no one tool provides balance, then missing one tool shouldn't be a deal breaker. AoS has terrain layouts, scenario objectives, and can have unit caps using multiple different measures. If it has everything else, why then is missing points such a big issue?
The biased. narrow and skewed narrative that you are constantly pushing – ‘points are bad,m’kay; they don’t work – eyeballing things is better just because’, along with your constant dismissive and condescending jabs towards people who want, or prefer something different along with your refusal to accept anything of value from that very same different point of view is just as destructive and just as naïve to the hobby and our community as the extreme end of argument on the other side – that points are an infallible be-all and end-all. And its not the first time I’ve called you out on this.
I don't say that points are bad. I'm pointing out that points don't do what you think they do, and in the rare cases where they do, they aren't terribly effective at it. I don't mind points at all, but the difference is, I don't mind NOT points either. So if something doesn't have points, then it doesn't suffer from the issues that only point systems add to a game, and maybe that's not a terrible thing after all.
I admit that I rather dislike WMH's point system as I feel it fails spectacularly to capture the nature of the game, and I think it is one of the leading reasons behind the fact that newbie WMH players have to put in dozens of games, almost all of them losing, before they "git gud" enough to play the game. There's nothing tactically complicated about WMH, but you NEED to know the synergies you are playing with and against, and the best way to employ them or counter them, to have a chance of winning. And that's not reflected at all in WMH's point system. It could be, but it isn't.
Age of Sigmar is similar in that unit quality can change drastically depending on various factors, so if people want to use Warmachine as a baseline by which to put a point system on the game, I'm against it. I'd rather have no points than a point system which drastically misrepresents the game. I don't have a problem with point systems in general, but I do have a problem with bad ones.
Besides, I think not having a point system is a bit freeing in how players can approach the game. I think it is refreshing to not base the entirety of a game around a single value. It's like being at the beach. You might really like bethonged buttockes, but when they wear a sarong, maybe you notice that their bosoms are pleasing to the eye as well.
I like how AOS does it - it states that the players are responsible for making a balanced game.
In 40k, instead of justifying the scatterbike list against the imperial guard theme list because of = points - the players could arbitrarily decide that the IG player should have an army double the size - without it feel like they were taking a handicap due to 'half the points'.
pox wrote:
There's a very thin margin of players the game appeals too, and for those players it's really a great game.
I agree with everything here except "very thin". Wargaming is a VERY small community of less than a dozen popular games (less than a half dozen?) that are so similar. And each wargaming basically cannibalizes players from other games rather than bringing in new players (possible exception: X-Wing Miniatures). The typical path to wargaming for most people, from what I've seen, is that they start with 40k until GW pisses them off, then moves to Warmachine/Infinity/KoW/Whatever. In other words, it is a very inbred community filled with largely the same types of players from the same socioeconomic background, with similar likes and dislikes.
...
....
Teh HoBBBy (as opposed to The HHHobby) is a narrow community of fewer than a dozen games. Teh HoBBBy is, as you say, people who started playing 40K and then moved on.
However this ignores the very large community of historical players, which is much older, has a wide base of support, and bleeds over into non-historical games of various types.
Yes, a very nice post! Made me reminisce about my childhood and playing 2nd Edition 40k. We just used to bring whatever back then too. I used to have a set of the Imperial Guard Praetorians all fully painted that I would take everywhere including to our "Warhammer birthday parties" which were 2nd Edition style mega battles, my Imperial Guard were usually horribly out gunned haha, but it didn't bother me - I still had lots of fun, and more importantly my army was better painted than everyone else. (Which is still the most important consideration today).
I didn't start using points and playing "real" 40k until 3rd edition. I found the CAD fun, but I was so disheartened to find my entire Praetorian army was just a single troop choice I gave up with them and collected Space Marines instead. My Space Marine army used to get beaten by my brother's Iron Warriors week in week out though. We both had 1,500 point armies and there was nothing I could do to address the balance. The models were so expensive before I had even a part time job that restructuring my army to optimize it just wasn't an option and 40k got packed away for a good number of years.
These experiences are probably what has shaped my open approach to balance. You post brought lots of memories back.
In 8th edition, my army wasn't a "Slayer army". It was a Dwarf army with a bunch of Slayers (many of which I couldn't use due to point restrictions, etc) With Age of Sigmar, I throw the old mandatory units out of the window and play with exclusively my themed, fluffy army.
My little brother loves Tomb Kings Statues. In 8th edition, he was hard pressed to be able to run his entire statuary army, and then he had to run a bunch of fiddly skeletons. Now, he just plays his statues.
One might counter with the point that an entire army of nothing but Slayers never really had much of a basis in fluff to begin with, much like the forces of the Tomb Kings have never been portrayed as just a bunch of giant statue things.
Now, one can call it a theme, but it doesn't necessarily make it fluffy either, much like an Empire army of nothing but Steam Tanks could ostensibly be a "themed" army that someone might think is cool, but has no basis in the background of the game. and in many instances, such could appear to be little more than an excuse for spam.
I disagree. I don't have books in front of me but in the Tomb Kings Army Book it tells of a Dwarven treasure hunting/exploratory force in Khemri. They are attacked by Tomb Kings and lose their leader, so the majority of them take the Slayer Oath right then and there and march to their doom as a single a force.
Now, for normal circumstances, no - a Slayer army is not fluffy... unless the fluff for your army is that it is an army of Slayers. My army fluff happens to have always been that the majority of them have taken a Slayer Oath and are trying to track down a specific entity which caused them to take the oath. There is precedence for this sort of gathering in the fluff, as there is precedence in the fluff for armies consisting of almost nothing but statuary marching upon the enemies of insane Necrotects.
These are exceptional cases, sure, but our armies are exceptional armies. My little brother and I are very much about the "Your Dudes" component of the hobby.
My objection has nothing to do with wanting to make an army out of all 'special' and 'rare' units without any 'core' from the 8th ed army building system, it is that the way the rules are supposed to work I can put down 15 archers, my opponent 15 spearmen, me another 15 archers, him 10 riflemen, me 10 light cav, him 10 heavy cav. I have my whole army on the field, that is all I bought, all I painted, and I love the theme of it. Except he then puts down 20 greatswords, a cannon and a griffin. He's doing nothing wrong, and he just wants to play his 'army' like I just want to play mine, but the way the game is set up I seem top be expected to have pheonix guard and a dragon to put down to match him.
I see. I didn't mean to make an army from Special or Rare or Hero units. I was giving examples of themes of armies I have personal experience with that happen to involve a lack of core. Then again, any theme that relied on core would be easy to achieve under 8e rules.
I know it's only an example, but I would like to point out that the additional 20 Greatswords, and cannon wouldn't make too much of a difference. Your army would still likely win, except you don't have anything to tackle the heavy cavalry or griffin. But that isn't the point, I guess. What if the opponent drops 3 units of Greatswords, 4 cannons, and 2 griffins after you've finished setting up? Sounds like a miscommunication of the intent of the game, like if my little brother set down his 3 Warsphinxes and I lined up 10 cannons and a line of Ironbreakers 4 ranks deep across the field.
That's not a satisfactory retort, I know.Sorry about that. There's not really anywhere else we can go with this line of discussion (that hasn't already been repeated a million times. I could say your opponent is being a dink, then you say your opponent was just putting down the army he wanted to play, and we go back and forth. Forever.), so... thanks for clarifying your position for me!
And it’s quite disheartening for someone who has played for years to have a fifty-fifty chance lose to a noob- it makes all that time and effort count for nothing. This basically gives no value to the concepts of ‘improvement’ and makes ‘getting better’ pointless. I am a long distance runner. I do marathons ‘for fun’. And if all that time and all that effort I put in, and all my experience I’ve earned counted for nothing in terms of my ability to do what I do, then the whole thing is utterly pointless. Wargames are no different. In other words, long term value is reduced and eliminated by eliminating skill as a feature. No thanks.
I find this attitude a bit disheartening, and probably why I struggle to grasp the whole points thing so much outside of tourneys. This is what I expect to hear in a tourney, not as a general statement. Maybe that is what you meant, but it is not clear. I want to play against people who are playing for the sake of playing a tense, close, dare I say it 'balanced' game, not those who want to show their 'skill' with a stomping big win in a one sided game.
Sure he who uses his army better wins, but that does not mean you have to have a greater then 50% win chance against a 'lesser' player. Skill is just as well measured by how much an advantage you can give the other guy and still win (Golf style), such that you start a game thinking this is a 50/50 as you stare at the noob across the table, and it will come down to who uses his army best. Your 'army' being a battalion his a division for example. If the noob says he wants to play with forces designed for equal players then sure, but that is him wanting that. To go into games wanting a massive win chance is pretty poor IMO. Are you wanting to be Blackadder at MButo gorge or Davout at Auerstedt.
As I said above, there is one board game that is simply my favorite game and I'm good at that game, no one locally is ever likely to beat me in even point games. I only know a small handful of people worldwide who have a good chance of beating me and one person I've yet to beat (there may well be others I haven't met of course). With the exception of one excellent tournament game by far and away my best games have been local games without points coming out of campaigns, where I will take on much larger forces and hope my skill in that game will carry me through. Some I lose some I win (in so far as win/lose is concept in a long term campaign) but they are far better, more exciting and closer fought for everyone involved. Everyone locally knows that I'm way ahead of them in that particular game, I don't need to prove anything by having a 99% win rate showing my skill.
It may be hard with a noob to judge ability, is he a good gamer generally?, just new to this game? etc. But in games like AOS/WarHammer I'd at least offer to play with some disadvantage so that we can both have a closer game. He will learn just as much if not a lot more seeing how it all works in such a game rather than getting tabled swiftly. If I lose then so what, it was game and I can have a rematch against someone who hopefully a bit more knowledgeable about rules and interactions now.
And it’s quite disheartening for someone who has played for years to have a fifty-fifty chance lose to a noob- it makes all that time and effort count for nothing. This basically gives no value to the concepts of ‘improvement’ and makes ‘getting better’ pointless. I am a long distance runner. I do marathons ‘for fun’. And if all that time and all that effort I put in, and all my experience I’ve earned counted for nothing in terms of my ability to do what I do, then the whole thing is utterly pointless. Wargames are no different. In other words, long term value is reduced and eliminated by eliminating skill as a feature. No thanks.
I find this attitude a bit disheartening, and probably why I struggle to grasp the whole points thing so much outside of tourneys. This is what I expect to hear in a tourney, not as a general statement. Maybe that is what you meant, but it is not clear. I want to play against people who are playing for the sake of playing a tense, close, dare I say it 'balanced' game, not those who want to show their 'skill' with a stomping big win in a one sided game.
Bear in mind, some groups play competitively outside of tournaments. Nothing wrong with that. I've done it, and will continue to do it. (And for the record, I play a number of war games - mainly historicals, WMH and infinity, but more importantly - at least for me - I play my wargames in a variety of different ways with a variety of different people. I like tournament play, but I am not exclusively a tournament player. I like home brew scenarios, games that last whole weekends, and chucking the rulebook out the window, and diy gaming. I like casual play. No one style dominates for me. Nor should it.)
I want to feel that if I play better than the other guy, I should come out ahead. Thst doesn't necessarily translate to a 'stomping big win'.
Sure he who uses his army better wins, but that does not mean you have to have a greater then 50% win chance against a 'lesser' player. Skill is just as well measured by how much an advantage you can give the other guy and still win (Golf style), such that you start a game thinking this is a 50/50 as you stare at the noob across the table, and it will come down to who uses his army best. Your 'army' being a battalion his a division for example. If the noob says he wants to play with forces designed for equal players then sure, but that is him wanting that. To go into games wanting a massive win chance is pretty poor IMO. Are you wanting to be Blackadder at MButo gorge or Davout at
What makes you think I don't do that? Page 5 states quite the opposite. Not noobstalking. It promotes self improvement and taking on the big dog - there's the challenge. When it comes to newer players, I am quite happy to pull back on the ruthlessometer and pull some of my punches. That said - I think it is disrespectful not to treat them as an equal, and as an equal it means respecting them enough to 'have a go' and try to beat them. to me, it's poor form to either crush them, or simply hand them the win - id be insulted if that was me in their shoes - in my mind, victory (even in toy soldiers) should be earned. Thst said, even if they lose, my mantra is that they should have a genuinely enjoyable game, learn from it etc. I've been playing this hobby for ten years. Whether I'm a 'veteran' or not, I don't rightly know a but I feel it's our duty to teach and bring up the next generations as well, and not just go looking for easy scalps.
It may be hard with a noob to judge ability, is he a good gamer generally?, just new to this game? etc. But in games like AOS/WarHammer I'd at least offer to play with some disadvantage so that we can both have a closer game. He will learn just as much if not a lot more seeing how it all works in such a game rather than getting tabled swiftly. If I lose then so what, it was game and I can have a rematch against someone who hopefully a bit more knowledgeable about rules and interactions now.
Or at the very least, 'talk them through what I'm doing, and why'. Don't think I don't do these things too puree.
Remember what I was saying about condascending and snide comments to those that disagree with you. How about you not laughing at the other side when they disagree with you. eh? It doesn't make you look good.
You cannot simply make the claim you make without factoring in the synergy-based gameplay and the other structural components around which the game is built and balanced (active duty roster, 2 or 3 list events, steamroller, scenarios, the assassination win condition etc). You can’t base an argument on ‘random armies’ when the game isn’t based around that. Which is precisely the red herring you are trying to present here. In other words, you are being dishonest. Points are simply the starting point. Your statement falls apart quite readily under any serious scrutiny.
Then what do points represent? Couldn't you just as easily replace them with "pick a warcaster, two warjacks, two units, and two solos", and wouldn't it be just as "balanced", if points are just a base line starting point for the real balancing? And isn't that what AoS kinda does?
What do they represent? In game value. Simples.
Could they replace it with what you suggest? Well, if all warcasters, units, warjacks and solos were the same, then maybe. Otherwise you'd have to have some kind of a metric by which to measure their in game value. Points, maybe?
And by baseline, I mean one of the foundations. You can build on top of it, and add extra support. Just like how Matt talks about 'use wounds as a baseline, and work from there', structurally speaking, points Work in the same fashion.
Points work by pricing the relative value of the pieces.
Except they don't because the actual value of each model CHANGES depending on what the other models in the game are. A unit of Mechanithralls are generally kind of sucky, and their points reflect that, but when paired with a Necrosurgeon (can resurrect them) and Terminus (gives them tough), they become significantly better. Like play a 15 point game with Terminus, three groups of mechanithralls, and two necrosurgeons - unless you design your team to specifically counter this combination of units, there's a high likelihood that you will be curbstomped when all your units are engaged and can't move against 26 units that are tough to kill and come back from the dead.
And let's say I take feora or Caine... Or a control caster and make them irrelevant. Or use my second list. Or go for the assassination. Or not play at 15points where skews can be an issue (steamroller is 35/50 for a reason...) it Doesn't have to be a 'specific counter'. It's almost like you are deliberately being obtuse and dishonest, and deliberately ignoring all the other factors at play in order to justify and reinforce your predetermined conclusions.
Like I said, points are one of many different tools working together steamroller is balanced around 35 and 50pt games for a reason. Regarding those mcthralls - of course they're better when you spend extra on them. The necrosurgeon is in effect a 'get better' tax that you pay for. Seems reasonable, eh? And they don't come back when you kill him or wipe out the squads. Rfp is a thing too.
So the points are less important than the synergies, and you have to design your armies around the synergies you will face.
So then why were you trying to argue 'points don't work' as though it's the only aspect that matters when you just admit that there are other forces in play. It's almost like there are other features that work with the points system to produce a balanced game.
There's a thread in the PP forums right now where someone suggested that if people could only bring one list to tournaments, would people bring more general purpose armies. Last I checked, the general consensus is that it would just lead to nothing but skew lists as people rolled the dice, knowing that most of the time, they'll win against a balanced army and if they were lucky, they wouldn't be paired up against the one or two skew lists that could counter them. How does that sound like a balanced game to you? A game in which bringing a balanced list will likely prevent you from winning.
Gee - you've got me stumped. If only pp were clever enough to build in safeguards into Their games like sideboards, variable win conditions. and multiple lists for organised events that could mitigate these issues before they became a problem...
It's almost like in order to prove your point, you are trying to discredit a game that doesn't actually exist, and that privateer press don't actually promote or produce. Irrelevant.
Reading some of the suggestions on that thread just made me smile - it just reinforces the notion that the player base are generally not the best ones to turn to to fix things, considering how staggeringly bad some of the 'fixes' suggested were, but this same resource (eyeball it, and let the players build the game they want) is somehow at the same time the bees knees in creating balanced games in aos and other games that don't use points? Mate, get off it
I'd play against Matt. He seems like a terrific bloke. He's got some good ideas. But in general, and exceptions aside, I don't rate the rest of the playerbase all thst highly for that sort of thing.
Here you go again. Misleading arguments backed up by a confirmation bias. Points are a very useful structural tool. They allow you to assign value to units, and whatever else. But you can’t use them exclusively. In the same way, you can’t build a house with only a hammer. Now, replace ‘points’ with other structural tools like ‘unit caps’, ‘scenario objectives’, ‘ terrain layouts’ etc and its just as true a statement. The simple fact is, no one tool provides balance all on its own.
Okay, if no one tool provides balance, then missing one tool shouldn't be a deal breaker. AoS has terrain layouts, scenario objectives, and can have unit caps using multiple different measures. If it has everything else, why then is missing points such a big issue?
Amusingly, I actually have no issues with the design philosophy behind aos. I play that way with games like flames of war and infinity. I have no issues with the fact that aos is point-less. But I also acknowledge the limitations and hurdles of that whole style of play. My issue is how you dismiss the value of points entirely, and how you refuse to accept any value from the arguments of the other side. Not using points is ok, but you need to compensate accordingly, and you run the risk of introducing other, equally unpleasant and frustrating elements. Long story short. Points are a valuable tool when used right and when used as part of a set. You're foolish to dismiss it so readily.
Aos uses no one thing in its construction, and the ultimate metric is the very vague and prone-to-error 'just eyeball it'. Why do you ignore all the other aspects in the construction of point-based games and dishonestly zero in on one tool?
The biased. narrow and skewed narrative that you are constantly pushing – ‘points are bad,m’kay; they don’t work – eyeballing things is better just because’, along with your constant dismissive and condescending jabs towards people who want, or prefer something different along with your refusal to accept anything of value from that very same different point of view is just as destructive and just as naïve to the hobby and our community as the extreme end of argument on the other side – that points are an infallible be-all and end-all. And its not the first time I’ve called you out on this.
I don't say that points are bad. I'm pointing out that points don't do what you think they do, and in the rare cases where they do, they aren't terribly effective at it. I don't mind points at all, but the difference is, I don't mind NOT points either. So if something doesn't have points, then it doesn't suffer from the issues that only point systems add to a game, and maybe that's not a terrible thing after all.
That's pretty much saying 'points are bad, m'kay'. And as I've said, your arguments are dishonest and misleading, and refuse to acknowledge all the facts or any input outside your own skewed narrative.
And if something doesn't use points - fair enough. But let's be honest, all you are doing is swapping the constraints. You end up with a different series of hurdles to jump through And will quite likely 'suffer' in other areas. WMH and 40k don't necessarily 'suffer' from points - that's just being dramatic. they might suffer from points used poorly, in places (especially the latter). But overall, points are a sound idea. And you can build around them. Let's not pretend they're the only tool in the kit, or that your preferred 'eyeball it' is somehow magically better. At least in WMH's case, various other structural tools mitigate its faults to a very large degree.
I admit that I rather dislike WMH's point system as I feel it fails spectacularly to capture the nature of the game, and I think it is one of the leading reasons behind the fact that newbie WMH players have to put in dozens of games, almost all of them losing, before they "git gud" enough to play the game. There's nothing tactically complicated about WMH, but you NEED to know the synergies you are playing with and against, and the best way to employ them or counter them, to have a chance of winning. And that's not reflected at all in WMH's point system. It could be, but it isn't.
Good for you. I love WMH's point system and feel it works quite well.
And I like that steep learning curve. It's one of WMH's main selling points for me. In my experience, it means when you start winning your games, it's because you've earned it. And it goes without saying a you need to understand the moving parts before you can get good yourself. It's called learning the fundamentals.
WMH is a pretty straight forward game- that's part of its charm, and whilst it's not my favourite game in terms of mechanics,it's my go-to game for ease of play.
As for the synergies not bring reflected in the points costs - that's rather unfair. Buffing solos, ua's etc cost points, for example. And are often limited with low unit caps. As for the warcasters themselves, they bring their own unique strengths and weaknesses that ultimately balance out. Various abilities exist that can negative, remove or simply ignore spell casting and work around those synergies. And if all else fails, there is 'axe to face'. And if WMH does one thing right, it's the body count. If something is an issue, then kill it.
Besides, I think not having a point system is a bit freeing in how players can approach the game. I think it is refreshing to not base the entirety of a game around a single value. It's like being at the beach. You might really like bethonged buttockes, but when they wear a sarong, maybe you notice that their bosoms are pleasing to the eye as well.
That 'single value' has its uses. Aos isn't all that tournament or pug friendly without extensive work. Points and structured games offer a lot of value for pick up games, organised play and tournaments, especially where time constraints is a thing, and where being able to 'get on with it' is a better option than sitting and negotiating what kind of game of toy soldiers you want to play.
I certainly acknowledge the value in diy gaming. I quite enjoy it, but there is a time and a place for it. And it isn't always the best, or most appropriate option. I also disagree with it being 'freeing'. Sure, it's a sandbox now instead of organised play, but you e simply swapped one set of requirements for another - in this case, social contract, balance by community accord-and-exclusion, peer pressure, and all the hassles and pitfalls that can be involved there.
Vaktathi wrote: Even with that, that allows for *way* more variability in power level than there should be...
Should be? Based on what metric? Can you not think of two units from a game with points system with similar points but "way" more variability in power level? I mean, in Warmachine, the difference between a character jack that you can only field one of and a normal run of the mill jack with less functionality might be one point.
Because fundamentally they don't have any weight, none of these values reflect anything about a model's capabilities, about all they do is limit the scale.
10 warscrolls with 100 or less models could mean 90 Chaos Knights vs 95 Goblins. There's no inherent "weight" to any of these factors, 10 warscrolls and 100 models could be 100 Ogres, 100 Chaos Knights, or 100 Goblins.
There's basically nothing in any of this that accounts for the fact that a Chaos Knight is dramatically superior to a Goblin.
Well, let's look at this. You wouldn't want to create a unit of 20 Chaos Knights because they get no bonuses for larger units and the unit cohesion rules and melee-only range would make it difficult to maneuver and be as effective as they could. So if you have 10 units of 10 figures, you'd have the most effective army of 100 Chaos Warriors - and you'd use up all ten of your available warscroll slots.
Goblins, if geared for ranged, can be a pretty good ranged unit. At 40+ models, they get +2 to hit, which means they have a 16" range, hit on 3+, wound on 5+. Since models don't block line of sight to its own unit, having a large number of models in a unit does not adversely affect it. So if you had two units or 40 goblins, you'd have an insane threat range and ability to inflict damage, and you've only used up two warscrolls. The remaining twenty models can be heroes, monsters, wizards, or meat shields to protect the archers. With a Goblin Shaman casting Sneaky Stabbin, they get a bonus to wound rolls and rend. So diversifying can really make a difference.
Geared for melee, even with the bonuses, the Goblins really only have reach on the Chaos Warriors, meaning they'd get more models into melee range, but Chaos Warriors roll three attacks and have three wounds, so they are essentially worth three melee Goblins. But Goblin Warboss's command ability adds 1 to bravery and 1 to attack count for all melee weapons. With proper maneuvering, you could potentially surround a unit of Chaos Warriors, getting all 40 hits in with reach, hitting twice each, with stats equivalent to the ensorcelled weapons. So while the Goblins are not equal, stat for stat, to Chaos Warriors, when taken with Goblin units that support them, they become situationally pretty good.
I get what you are saying and that is, given some limitation, being able to spam great units is going to be a lot better than fielding a group of middling units. But I think that's unfair because the synergies matter the most, so you are going to want to diversify your warscrolls to maximize your options rather than spam a single type of unit, and in doing so, just by virtue of there being minimum requirements for a warscroll, you are going to fill up that 100 models with a bunch of different models, some great, some good, some situationally amazing.
Ultimately, yes you could do some things to maneuver the goblins this way or that, but if we're talking equal numbers of Goblins to equal numbers of Knights or Chaos Warriors, assuming equal skill, the Goblins are just going to get tossed. Sure you could surround a unit of Chaos Warriors, but you don't have a numerical advantage to really do so, they can just as easily surround you, and with superior units to boot.
There's nothing weighting the value of anything here. 100 models of X divided into 10 Warscrolls is not like 100 Models of Y divided into 10 Warscrolls. 10 units of 10 Chaos Warriors or 10 units of 10 Ogres is not going to be anything even remotely resembling an even match for 10 units of 10 Goblins. Trying to balance anything this way just doesn't work, it doesn't really do anything, there's zero reflection of a model's capabilities and stats. If you try to balance games this way you get one-sided slaughters.
I am finally approaching my 60th game of AoS, I am not a "fanboy" but I am not a "hater" either. But some of my observations from this experience is, this game is awful. It really is hack work. they did nothing new or original here. They sold us a watered down version of warhammer and then half/arsed it. That doesn't make it not fun to play from time to time and we do. It is not "fast" so far it has taken us just as long to play it as it did warhammer. They are completely different games in the same way that mordheim and warhammer were different. It does have some really nice parts to it, while I despise the aesthetics of the warscrolls, they are nice and convenient. the models are still the ones we know and love (and better yet, we all have) While the fluff made some..."changes" to the setting, its really not important to the game. there are a lot of awful games that can be really fun, take "Carnage" for example, or even Dark Heaven: apocalypse. these were also pretty awful games that can be fun to play. That is my post 50 game assessment and its my opinion, AoS is FUN, but its a pretty shoddy product. having been a GW customer for a long time, I am also convinced AoS will not survive in its current form, we have 7 editions of 40k and 8 editions of warhammer, AoS is pretty much doomed. it will go through edition hacks and we will be right back here argueing about which AoS edition is better in a few years. That is if GW doesnt go down to being a second or third tier company, which is very possible. I use the examples of White Wolf, TSR, and FASA to prove that point, all three were THE titans of their day, all three are extinct. AoS will survive and change. I like it about as much as I liked warhammer fantasy, but in no way am I giving GW a pass for this "effort" its bad, and they could have done a hell of a lot better, the talent is there. That said my vampires are looking forward to fighting the hated sigmarines wednesday night for game #60.
Bottle wrote: Tbh, I not fussed for points with or without. The only important thing for me is total unbound is a must.
I honestly hate this.
Not because I am some WAAC player who can't handle losing, but because I find it horribly unfluffy.
Some of GW's best codices/army books are the ones that allow a lot of themes within their rules themselves, like the 5th ed Imperial Guard army allowing conscript regiments, veteren regiments, airborne regiments, mechanized, armour, artillery, etc. They had a LOT of different ways to build fluffly lists. Throw in ally mechanics with a better matrix than the ones we were given in 40k and you have a good system.
Unbound on the other hand allows sigmarines charging into battle alongside khornites to kill those nasty high elves.
I think the first example of something unbound used in white dwarf was someone saying in the magazine they were eager to run a list of all riptides, again not fluffy were Farsight had a way to bring lots of riptides already and had them supported by other suits, much fluffier.
Bottle wrote: Tbh, I not fussed for points with or without. The only important thing for me is total unbound is a must.
I honestly hate this.
Not because I am some WAAC player who can't handle losing, but because I find it horribly unfluffy.
Some of GW's best codices/army books are the ones that allow a lot of themes within their rules themselves, like the 5th ed Imperial Guard army allowing conscript regiments, veteren regiments, airborne regiments, mechanized, armour, artillery, etc. They had a LOT of different ways to build fluffly lists. Throw in ally mechanics with a better matrix than the ones we were given in 40k and you have a good system.
Unbound on the other hand allows sigmarines charging into battle alongside khornites to kill those nasty high elves.
I think the first example of something unbound used in white dwarf was someone saying in the magazine they were eager to run a list of all riptides, again not fluffy were Farsight had a way to bring lots of riptides already and had them supported by other suits, much fluffier.
I agree. On the odd occasion fluffy armies could not be catered for reasonably that was when we house ruled ruled those in. We did not need unbound or no points to tell us we can take some imperial guard troops in our Tau army as Gauvesa or to have re-spawning orks charge us until we died or ran out of time etc. The idea that points prevents this is a really weird one to me. If anything points keeps this in check so people don't go overboard.
Structure creates an amazing way to do fluffy armies because you have structure to begin with and can take away structure when needed. You dont have to work backwards like in AOS.
jonolikespie wrote: Not because I am some WAAC player who can't handle losing, but because I find it horribly unfluffy. .
Indeed. This is what I was referring to earlier with the Clix comparison. While yes, it technically allows people to create unusual themed armies, for the most part I would expect it to just wind up being used to field armies with no theme, just a collection of whatever miniatures someone happens to own.
You're all being too negative. The unbound element of AoS allows for incredibly cool concepts that could never be catered for before, for example combining Sylvaneth with Vampire Counts spirits to create a "Haunted Forest" theme. Or the recently featured Shadow army in Visions that was an amazing combination of Dark Elves, Vampire Counts, High Elves and some Empire/Elf converted counts as.
If an opponent was fielding a bizarre mix of models, I would ask them what's the story about those guys all ending up together. I get these questions all the time myself as my army now includes Empire, High Elves, Dwarves and a sprinkle of summoned Vanpire Counts. (My Warhammer Quest themed army)
If someone truely played with a random collection of models with no passion for the narrative aspect of the game, then I probably wouldn't play them very much, but I have never seen it happen in real life.
Bottle wrote: You're all being too negative. The unbound element of AoS allows for incredibly cool concepts that could never be catered for before, for example combining Sylvaneth with Vampire Counts spirits to create a "Haunted Forest" theme. Or the recently featured Shadow army in Visions that was an amazing combination of Dark Elves, Vampire Counts, High Elves and some Empire/Elf converted counts as.
If an opponent was fielding a bizarre mix of models, I would ask them what's the story about those guys all ending up together. I get these questions all the time myself as my army now includes Empire, High Elves, Dwarves and a sprinkle of summoned Vanpire Counts. (My Warhammer Quest themed army)
If someone truely played with a random collection of models with no passion for the narrative aspect of the game, then I probably wouldn't play them very much, but I have never seen it happen in real life.
I see nothing that stops me from doing this ever... I personally think it takes a closed mind to need to be given permission to do this.
I agree if it's just a hodge podge of models that had no reason to be there it sucks but you are more likely to see those in a system like AOS or unbound 40k etc.
Well, the rules used to stop you from doing it before.
Sure you can break them, but people like to play by the rules (including me).
Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?
Bottle wrote: You're all being too negative. The unbound element of AoS allows for incredibly cool concepts that could never be catered for before, for example combining Sylvaneth with Vampire Counts spirits to create a "Haunted Forest" theme.
That's a cool theme, that I would have just made in 8th ed by fielding treekin models and calling them ghouls mechanics wise. No need to really use unbound for that and it would most likely have been tourney legal too (some TOs might take issue with it, but all the ones I have met are always willing to let things slide if they are cool, it is the times people are trying to use blank bases or grabbing something from one of their other armies to stand in that look out of place and are blatantly just trying to save time/money by not using the real models that TOs take issue with).
Bottle wrote: Well, the rules used to stop you from doing it before.
Sure you can break them, but people like to play by the rules (including me).
Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?
I do have faith in my opponents since I play with friends, but I also want structure in my games. Rules have never prevented me from either using counts as or simply ignoring 1 or 2 rules to make the game work. I certainly did not have to finish writing the rules of a game to have fun.
regardless even if the rules prevent you, with a tiniest amount of imagination you can simply use whatever models you want for whatever rules you want.
Everything special about AOS is redundant (and unbound) if you think about it for a second.
thekingofkings wrote: I am finally approaching my 60th game of AoS, I am not a "fanboy" but I am not a "hater" either. But some of my observations from this experience is, this game is awful. It really is hack work. they did nothing new or original here. They sold us a watered down version of warhammer and then half/arsed it. That doesn't make it not fun to play from time to time and we do. It is not "fast" so far it has taken us just as long to play it as it did warhammer. They are completely different games in the same way that mordheim and warhammer were different. It does have some really nice parts to it, while I despise the aesthetics of the warscrolls, they are nice and convenient. the models are still the ones we know and love (and better yet, we all have) While the fluff made some..."changes" to the setting, its really not important to the game. there are a lot of awful games that can be really fun, take "Carnage" for example, or even Dark Heaven: apocalypse. these were also pretty awful games that can be fun to play. That is my post 50 game assessment and its my opinion, AoS is FUN, but its a pretty shoddy product. having been a GW customer for a long time, I am also convinced AoS will not survive in its current form, we have 7 editions of 40k and 8 editions of warhammer, AoS is pretty much doomed. it will go through edition hacks and we will be right back here argueing about which AoS edition is better in a few years. That is if GW doesnt go down to being a second or third tier company, which is very possible. I use the examples of White Wolf, TSR, and FASA to prove that point, all three were THE titans of their day, all three are extinct. AoS will survive and change. I like it about as much as I liked warhammer fantasy, but in no way am I giving GW a pass for this "effort" its bad, and they could have done a hell of a lot better, the talent is there. That said my vampires are looking forward to fighting the hated sigmarines wednesday night for game #60.
60 games is pretty incredible. I don't think I've played more than 30-40 games of 40k in the 2 years I've been playing it.
Like I said, it's bespoke to every game. Sometimes I play the 4 page rules "deployment poker" sometimes I choose a model count, sometimes a wound count, sometimes with GWs school league rules, sometimes with the battleplan specific set up.
So if you're altering the rules for army creation in this game, what was stopping you from doing so in the other game?
Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?
Because people who aren't me quite often do things that I wouldn't, due to not being me?
Like I said, it's bespoke to every game. Sometimes I play the 4 page rules "deployment poker" sometimes I choose a model count, sometimes a wound count, sometimes with GWs school league rules, sometimes with the battleplan specific set up.
So if you're altering the rules for army creation in this game, what was stopping you from doing so in the other game?
How am I altering the rules? The rules state you can bring whatever models you want. That's what I am doing.
So if I choose to bring all the models on my shelf, that's in the rules. If I chose to bring my entire collection, that's in the rules. If i decide to bring models that don't exceed a certain amount of wounds, that's in the rules.
Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?
Because people who aren't me quite often do things that I wouldn't, due to not being me?
That's very pessimistic. I give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. I am not approaching AoS with the intent of spoiling another's fun, and I don't presume my opponent is either.
Bottle wrote: You're all being too negative. The unbound element of AoS allows for incredibly cool concepts that could never be catered for before, for example combining Sylvaneth with Vampire Counts spirits to create a "Haunted Forest" theme.
That's a cool theme, that I would have just made in 8th ed by fielding treekin models and calling them ghouls mechanics wise. No need to really use unbound for that and it would most likely have been tourney legal too (some TOs might take issue with it, but all the ones I have met are always willing to let things slide if they are cool, it is the times people are trying to use blank bases or grabbing something from one of their other armies to stand in that look out of place and are blatantly just trying to save time/money by not using the real models that TOs take issue with).
There's a difference between me and you then. For me, GW make flavoursome rules rather than well balanced rules, and so I would like to use the rules that add flavour (i.e. the rules for the models rather than counts as).
Bottle wrote: Well, the rules used to stop you from doing it before.
Sure you can break them, but people like to play by the rules (including me).
Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?
I do have faith in my opponents since I play with friends, but I also want structure in my games. Rules have never prevented me from either using counts as or simply ignoring 1 or 2 rules to make the game work. I certainly did not have to finish writing the rules of a game to have fun.
regardless even if the rules prevent you, with a tiniest amount of imagination you can simply use whatever models you want for whatever rules you want.
Everything special about AOS is redundant (and unbound) if you think about it for a second.
As above I would prefer to play with the actual model rules than 'counts-as'. GW rules for specific models add flavour to games.
And the original point that you are contesting is not that AoS is special, just that I do not care if points exist or not, but do prefer the unbound playing style. I am not saying this a unique plus of AoS, but instead if Age of Sigmar was to include points I wouldn't be fussed. But if it was to remove the free unit choice I would be because I have come to embrace it.
How am I altering the rules? The rules state you can bring whatever models you want. That's what I am doing.
So if I choose to bring all the models on my shelf, that's in the rules. If I chose to bring my entire collection, that's in the rules. If i decide to bring models that don't exceed a certain amount of wounds, that's in the rules.
.
If you are imposing limitations on army selection that aren't present in the rules, then you are altering the rules.
The fact that the community is coming up with a bunch of different systems for doing that has been touted in this thread as one of the selling points of this game. But altering rules is apparently a bad thing if you do it in a different game...
Again, when the rules say I can bring whatever I want and I do just that, I don't see how I am altering them tbh.
The thing about the set up rules in AoS is almost everything has "can" written before it. Players can choose the sudden death rules, players can choose what models they bring etc.
That's why it's bespoke to the game at hand in my opponent.
Again, not saying this is some amazing unique aspect of AoS, just something I am enjoying.
Bottle wrote: Again, when the rules say I can bring whatever I want and I do just that, I don't see how I am altering them tbh..
Can you point out the rules that cover limiting your force to a specific number of scrolls, or a specific wound count?
If you're just choosing to only put three units on the table, then that's just you choosing to only put three units on the table.
But if you're agreeing with your opponent before the game to each only play with three scrolls, then you're changing the game... Because that's not how the rules say to play.
jonolikespie wrote: Not because I am some WAAC player who can't handle losing, but because I find it horribly unfluffy. .
Indeed. This is what I was referring to earlier with the Clix comparison. While yes, it technically allows people to create unusual themed armies, for the most part I would expect it to just wind up being used to field armies with no theme, just a collection of whatever miniatures someone happens to own.
It is not just unfluffy, more importantly Unbound removes the balance factor built into codexes and the Force Org Chart.
Bottle wrote: You're all being too negative. The unbound element of AoS allows for incredibly cool concepts that could never be catered for before, for example combining Sylvaneth with Vampire Counts spirits to create a "Haunted Forest" theme. ...
...
.
You could always do that. No-one forces you to play with points and lists and equal armies in WHFB or 40K. It was always an option to throw the codex out the window and go crazy; Tau Battlesuit Training Army link up with Ork Biker Hordes to fight Chaos Tyranid menace, etc. Vets could play N00bs with a 50% points handicap to make the game more even.
AoS does nothing to create or enhance those options. It just removes any guidance for how to work out the value of an army, which is a useful yardstick for designing scenarios.
It's true that you COULD change rules, make up your own points, play without points etc in any game ever, you don't need AoS for that... except most people never do it. The big difference is that AoS encourages or even demands those things, because there is no official framework to fall back on. So I find myself playing more narrative games, using points sometimes and sometimes not... something I would not do in other games simply because like most people, I go the path of least resistance, which is using the official framework because it's convenient. So the end result is that these things are done in AoS but not nearly as often, if ever, in other games.
Bottle wrote: Again, when the rules say I can bring whatever I want and I do just that, I don't see how I am altering them tbh..
Can you point out the rules that cover limiting your force to a specific number of scrolls, or a specific wound count?
If you're just choosing to only put three units on the table, then that's just you choosing to only put three units on the table.
But if you're agreeing with your opponent before the game to each only play with three scrolls, then you're changing the game... Because that's not how the rules say to play.
No because there isn't. I suggest ending this line of discussion because we are not agreeing. For me when the rules say you can bring whatever you want, that means me and my opponent are free to bring what we want - even if - what we want has self imposed limitations. The end.
jonolikespie wrote: Not because I am some WAAC player who can't handle losing, but because I find it horribly unfluffy. .
Indeed. This is what I was referring to earlier with the Clix comparison. While yes, it technically allows people to create unusual themed armies, for the most part I would expect it to just wind up being used to field armies with no theme, just a collection of whatever miniatures someone happens to own.
It is not just unfluffy, more importantly Unbound removes the balance factor built into codexes and the Force Org Chart.
Bottle wrote: You're all being too negative. The unbound element of AoS allows for incredibly cool concepts that could never be catered for before, for example combining Sylvaneth with Vampire Counts spirits to create a "Haunted Forest" theme. ...
...
.
You could always do that. No-one forces you to play with points and lists and equal armies in WHFB or 40K. It was always an option to throw the codex out the window and go crazy; Tau Battlesuit Training Army link up with Ork Biker Hordes to fight Chaos Tyranid menace, etc. Vets could play N00bs with a 50% points handicap to make the game more even.
AoS does nothing to create or enhance those options. It just removes any guidance for how to work out the value of an army, which is a useful yardstick for designing scenarios.
So are you for or against playing with whatever you want? Because your post says both.
Bottle wrote: Well, the rules used to stop you from doing it before.
Sure you can break them, but people like to play by the rules (including me).
Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?
Because nothing in the rules is stopping you! That's the thing!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mymearan wrote: It's true that you COULD change rules, make up your own points, play without points etc in any game ever, you don't need AoS for that... except most people never do it. The big difference is that AoS encourages or even demands those things, because there is no official framework to fall back on. So I find myself playing more narrative games, using points sometimes and sometimes not... something I would not do in other games simply because like most people, I go the path of least resistance, which is using the official framework because it's convenient. So the end result is that these things are done in AoS but not nearly as often, if ever, in other games.
As I have stated before - nothing stopped players from playing WHFB/whatever game uses points/a universal balancing measurement exactly like AoS is being played and ignoring points/balancing measures. Nothing. You can toss the rules out and go full on lulz "look at my khornate skink army".
You are only playing AoS like this because GW is telling you to play it like this.
Mymearan wrote: It's true that you COULD change rules, make up your own points, play without points etc in any game ever, you don't need AoS for that... except most people never do it. The big difference is that AoS encourages or even demands those things, because there is no official framework to fall back on. So I find myself playing more narrative games, using points sometimes and sometimes not... something I would not do in other games simply because like most people, I go the path of least resistance, which is using the official framework because it's convenient. So the end result is that these things are done in AoS but not nearly as often, if ever, in other games.
As I have stated before - nothing stopped players from playing WHFB/whatever game uses points/a universal balancing measurement exactly like AoS is being played and ignoring points/balancing measures. Nothing. You can toss the rules out and go full on lulz "look at my khornate skink army".
You are only playing AoS like this because GW is telling you to play it like this.
That's exactly my point though... you COULD do the same in WHFB or any game ever... but almost no one did. They use the official framework because it's easier and more convenient. So no matter the reason why, the end result is that people play Age of Sigmar in ways they did not play WHFB. Which I personally enjoy.
Mymearan wrote: It's true that you COULD change rules, make up your own points, play without points etc in any game ever, you don't need AoS for that... except most people never do it. The big difference is that AoS encourages or even demands those things, because there is no official framework to fall back on. So I find myself playing more narrative games, using points sometimes and sometimes not... something I would not do in other games simply because like most people, I go the path of least resistance, which is using the official framework because it's convenient. So the end result is that these things are done in AoS but not nearly as often, if ever, in other games.
As I have stated before - nothing stopped players from playing WHFB/whatever game uses points/a universal balancing measurement exactly like AoS is being played and ignoring points/balancing measures. Nothing. You can toss the rules out and go full on lulz "look at my khornate skink army".
You are only playing AoS like this because GW is telling you to play it like this.
That's exactly my point though... you COULD do the same in WHFB or any game ever... but almost no one did. They use the official framework because it's easier and more convenient. So no matter the reason why, the end result is that people play Age of Sigmar in ways they did not play WHFB. Which I personally enjoy.
*Watches his point flying waaaay up in the air, ungrasped*
Mymearan wrote: It's true that you COULD change rules, make up your own points, play without points etc in any game ever, you don't need AoS for that... except most people never do it. The big difference is that AoS encourages or even demands those things, because there is no official framework to fall back on. So I find myself playing more narrative games, using points sometimes and sometimes not... something I would not do in other games simply because like most people, I go the path of least resistance, which is using the official framework because it's convenient. So the end result is that these things are done in AoS but not nearly as often, if ever, in other games.
It forces people too, which is bad as it restricts playstyles and player compatibility. There is no standard so people will have to come up with compromises every time they play with new people etc. Even in AOS you will have next to nobody (of the few who even play it) make much use of this "forced freedom" since people will fall back onto the comp system instead.
All this means one thing... it would have been better for everybody if it had a nice decent structure to begin with, and the people who want to be creative can do so. This method is the most inclusive method as it eases access and allows for randoms to play each other when needed.
There is no downside for a non historical game to have structure, because you can always remove rules easily... adding rules however is literally a job. This would be better for the company making the rules and also better for the player base. GW has made it a job to have a standard game for all to play on a whim, not many people want more jobs in this hobby and if they do very few will waste that effort on a game like this which by 99% of accounts (even by fans) is a subpar game.
If you like that, that is fine. But structure is an objectively better way of doing things for all players. Having structure will not stop you playing how you want to play however having no structure makes it harder to play any way you want to play.
The only reason most of you are playing this is because GW has their logo on it.
Mymearan wrote: Maybe you could explain instead? I don't see what you're saying that's different from whay I'm saying.
Fine.
Answer me this: how many people did you see campaigning in the forums that points/balancing systems are bad before AoS hit? Not campaigning that FB/40/Wmh/Infinity were unbalanced, but outright stating that balancing systems were horrible to begin with and that you should never use balancing tools in tabletop games - you should eyeball it all because it's "so much better that way and so much fluffier too!" (e.g khornate skinks). What happened between then and now?
I really can only remember Jervis in that beautiful article he wrote all those years before this gak fest...
Also... what was the initial reaction to Unbound? Note: not Apocalypse. Unbound. And what is the overall agreement that Unbound is? And what is the prefered way to play 40k matches still worldwide - is it Unbound or that horrible, horrible points system option? What did the 40k playerbase decide was the best playing option when given a choice?
And now... AoS. And all fething hell went loose. The Pied Piper's tune started going wrong...
People are defending AoS's system because it's what GW has implemented. End of. However, when presented with an option between that Free For All gak and an internal, singular balancing system, I bet you they will go for the points system first and then, if they so desire it, throw it out the window. It's just that simple - they are following because they are afraid to step out of Holy GW's plastic crack. If AoS would have had a full points/singular internal balancing system and 4 pages in the back of the rulebook saying "look play this here if going for full lulz level", I would bet you Jervis Johnson and his pals would still be the only ones playing things like that. Hell, I can even bet you that if Mantic did a system exactly like this, many of the AoS defenders would outright mock it to hell. Period.
I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread (and apparently was called a troll for saying it) - this AoS schism and the gakstorm that followed is just a fallout of GW bullying their way of playing on their customer base. "Play it like this - like we tell you to - or gtfo"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: The only reason most of you are playing this is because GW has their logo on it.
chaosmarauder wrote: I like how AOS does it - it states that the players are responsible for making a balanced game.
In 40k, instead of justifying the scatterbike list against the imperial guard theme list because of = points - the players could arbitrarily decide that the IG player should have an army double the size - without it feel like they were taking a handicap due to 'half the points'.
And that is exactly why GW is pushing this so hard lol. That and to sell more big kits across army lines... but not having a structure to build the army around kills it for me personally.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Answer me this: how many people did you see campaigning in the forums that points/balancing systems are bad before AoS hit? Not campaigning that FB/40/Wmh/Infinity were unbalanced, but outright stating that balancing systems were horrible to begin with and that you should never use balancing tools in tabletop games - you should eyeball it all because it's "so much better that way and so much fluffier too!" (e.g khornate skinks). What happened between then and now?
They saw an alternative they had never considered before?
I don't think points are really the issue here. I think most people would agree that points are a tool, and not the only tool, and it can be used in good ways and bad ways. Where people disagree on the lack of points is largely the lack of guidance, not balance. If AoS had something that gave that guidance, even if it wasn't points (pre-planned scenarios, some sort of deployment guidelines), people would be less hateful towards it. But lacking that guidance, people are uneasy - most seem to have little practical experience, and their uneasiness seems to give them anxiety that prevents them from seeking it out.
I think that's one of two major points against AoS. The other is that it replaced WHFB on short notice, without a proper mourning period. To people who hate that, AoS will always be GW's Shemp. There's not really much anyone can do about that one.
People are defending AoS's system because it's what GW has implemented.
I assure you, I'm not. I'd never bought a GW product before AoS. But where some people see a lack of guidance, I see a lack of restrictions. It's like open world video games. Some people require linearity to not get lost and feel anxious about what they are supposed to be doing, and some people see a mountain on the horizon and think, "I'm going to jump off that thing".
Hell, I can even bet you that if Mantic did a system exactly like this, many of the AoS defenders would outright mock it to hell. Period.
Why would this be the case? I've seen nothing to suggest that AoS fans are anti-Mantic, much less because they are AoS fans. Heck, I just ordered Deadzone last night. If they did a system like AoS, I'd find it intriguing as well. The people who would complain would be the people who left GW for Mantic because GW was doing a system like this. That betrayal would be the stuff of legends.
I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread (and apparently was called a troll for saying it) - this AoS schism and the gakstorm that followed is just a fallout of GW bullying their way of playing on their customer base. "Play it like this - like we tell you to - or gtfo"
But your complaints are, literally, that GW doesn't tell you how to play...
I really can only remember Jervis in that beautiful article he wrote all those years before this gak fest...
I like that article (don't agree 100%, but still find it an interesting read). It shows why GW went for something like AoS.
They haven't followed through on their end of the bargain though. Jervis talks about how influential they can be on the style of games most often played and yet they focus 0% nowadays on actually how to play the games. It's the biggest mistake GW make in my eyes, and being able to read articles or watch videos about the developers having fun with the AoS ruleset would work wonders. As it is we only have the noble efforts of MongooseMatt.
I really can only remember Jervis in that beautiful article he wrote all those years before this gak fest...
I like that article (don't agree 100%, but still find it an interesting read). It shows why GW went for something like AoS.
They haven't followed through on their end of the bargain though. Jervis talks about how influential they can be on the style of games most often played and yet they focus 0% nowadays on actually how to play the games. It's the biggest mistake GW make in my eyes, and being able to read articles or watch videos about the developers having fun with the AoS ruleset would work wonders. As it is we only have the noble efforts of MongooseMatt.
And, as unfortunately somewhat expected, you're completely ignoring how he pretty much paints competitive players as the cancer of wargaming and writes the article in a way that is looks more like an act of division instead of inclusion.
And I have trouble seeing on how they haven't followed on their end of the bargain. How more uncompetitive can you get apart from AoS? They pretty much just said "Here, our company stance is now to do whatever you want. We don't care as long as you purchase our models to play this."
And, as unfortunately somewhat expected, you're completely ignoring how he pretty much paints competitive players as the cancer of wargaming and writes the article in a way that is looks more like an act of division instead of inclusion.
I thought the dislike of WAAC players was a pretty common sentiment, not just in wargaming but in gaming in general?
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Answer me this: how many people did you see campaigning in the forums that points/balancing systems are bad before AoS hit? Not campaigning that FB/40/Wmh/Infinity were unbalanced, but outright stating that balancing systems were horrible to begin with and that you should never use balancing tools in tabletop games - you should eyeball it all because it's "so much better that way and so much fluffier too!" (e.g khornate skinks). What happened between then and now?
They saw an alternative they had never considered before?
Holy gak! Really? I saw that alternative when I was 5 year old playing with army men Guess what? I am not 5 anymore and I like my games to have decent structure. Or else it's not really a game, it's just moving miniatures around while making funny noises - an activity something that GW encourages, apparently.
Sqorgar wrote: I don't think points are really the issue here. I think most people would agree that points are a tool, and not the only tool, and it can be used in good ways and bad ways. Where people disagree on the lack of points is largely the lack of guidance, not balance. If AoS had something that gave that guidance, even if it wasn't points (pre-planned scenarios, some sort of deployment guidelines), people would be less hateful towards it. But lacking that guidance, people are uneasy - most seem to have little practical experience, and their uneasiness seems to give them anxiety that prevents them from seeking it out.
I think that's one of two major points against AoS. The other is that it replaced WHFB on short notice, without a proper mourning period. To people who hate that, AoS will always be GW's Shemp. There's not really much anyone can do about that one.
People are defending AoS's system because it's what GW has implemented.
I assure you, I'm not. I'd never bought a GW product before AoS. But where some people see a lack of guidance, I see a lack of restrictions. It's like open world video games. Some people require linearity to not get lost and feel anxious about what they are supposed to be doing, and some people see a mountain on the horizon and think, "I'm going to jump off that thing".
Comparing open world video games to tabletop = fail. In so many ways it's not even funny. Moving on
Hell, I can even bet you that if Mantic did a system exactly like this, many of the AoS defenders would outright mock it to hell. Period.
Why would this be the case? I've seen nothing to suggest that AoS fans are anti-Mantic, much less because they are AoS fans. Heck, I just ordered Deadzone last night. If they did a system like AoS, I'd find it intriguing as well. The people who would complain would be the people who left GW for Mantic because GW was doing a system like this. That betrayal would be the stuff of legends.
Cute little twist there, but in case you didn't figure it out, the point isn't "GW players hate Mantic". The point is "This game is being treated differently because it was released by GW". You can replace Mantic with any other model company out there that the results would be the same.
I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread (and apparently was called a troll for saying it) - this AoS schism and the gakstorm that followed is just a fallout of GW bullying their way of playing on their customer base. "Play it like this - like we tell you to - or gtfo"
But your complaints are, literally, that GW doesn't tell you how to play...
Oh sure, I don't like the way he presented it. But the essential idea; that campaign and narrative games are great, is something I agree with (well, maybe he didn't say that lol).
By not following through, I meant they no longer show us how to play their games. They have given us a big sandbox (which I love, but others don't) but they no longer publish content on how to play these games (I.e. The old white dwarf content, battle reports and articles etc).
And, as unfortunately somewhat expected, you're completely ignoring how he pretty much paints competitive players as the cancer of wargaming and writes the article in a way that is looks more like an act of division instead of inclusion.
I thought the dislike of WAAC players was a pretty common sentiment, not just in wargaming but in gaming in general?
Jervis doesn't focus on WAAC players. He adresses "tournament players" as a whole.
Bottle wrote: Oh sure, I don't like the way he presented it. But the essential idea; that campaign and narrative games are great, is something I agree with (well, maybe he didn't say that lol).
By not following through, I meant they no longer show us how to play their games. They have given us a big sandbox (which I love, but others don't) but they no longer publish content on how to play these games (I.e. The old white dwarf content, battle reports and articles etc).
What I miss the most is the variety of painting and modelling articles. That was stock full of good ideas.
And, as unfortunately somewhat expected, you're completely ignoring how he pretty much paints competitive players as the cancer of wargaming and writes the article in a way that is looks more like an act of division instead of inclusion.
I thought the dislike of WAAC players was a pretty common sentiment, not just in wargaming but in gaming in general?
Competitive =/= waac. Tournaments are fine. Don't generalise or make Incorrect generalisations here.
Waac players will exist everywhere, even in the 'just eyeball it' sandbox that is aos.
Competitive =/= waac. Tournaments are fine. Don't generalise or make Incorrect generalisations here.
The Jervis article was written over 15 years ago, and WAAC was only an acronym only after 2008 or so (near as I can tell). In the editorial, almost all the things he complains about, including "... because all they were interested in was winning games", describes WAAC players, not just any random player who happened to wander into a tournament.
Competitive =/= waac. Tournaments are fine. Don't generalise or make Incorrect generalisations here.
The Jervis article was written over 15 years ago, and WAAC was only an acronym only after 2008 or so (near as I can tell). In the editorial, almost all the things he complains about, including "... because all they were interested in was winning games", describes WAAC players, not just any random player who happened to wander into a tournament.
I think it shows a massive disconnect between how the GW studio does things and how the majority of their fanbase do things.
So GW isn't allowed to create anything that doesn't serve the majority of their existing fanbase?
Sure they are, and that's how we got exactly where we are at the moment. A broken, squabbling customer base. Isn't it swell?
Also, his worries extend far beyond WAAC players - you're just choosing not to acknowledge it. And the year of the article is irrelevant as it mirrors exactly how GW is pushing AoS as. Decades, centuries old plays and books are just as incisive and relevant now as they were then, if not more.
jonolikespie wrote: No, GW is stupid for trying to force a style of play on their customers (the people that pay their salaries) that said people don't seem to want.
What did GW force anybody to do? Their decision to stop WHFB was a financial one (as in, WHFB players weren't doing their part to pay their salaries), and AoS is a separate game, with separate goals, that nobody is being forced to play.
jonolikespie wrote: No, GW is stupid for trying to force a style of play on their customers (the people that pay their salaries) that said people don't seem to want.
Btw there is "some" ground to consider that when GW releases something with the thought to appeal to the public at large it is profitable. My example would be 5th edition of 40k - Cavatore stated that his team went around gaming clubs, saw how most people played, what they liked and what they didn't and incorporated it into 5th. It is regarded as the most successful edition since 4th(included). Yes, I know it has been given many times as an example, but it is the only edition AFAIK for which that was publicly stated. Ergo if AoS proves to be profitable there may be some ground to consider that this was what the audience (or atleast part of it) wanted . It may be an "acquired" desire though...
jonolikespie wrote: No, GW is stupid for trying to force a style of play on their customers (the people that pay their salaries) that said people don't seem to want.
Btw there is "some" ground to consider that when GW releases something with the thought to appeal to the public at large it is profitable. My example would be 5th edition of 40k - Cavatore stated that his team went around gaming clubs, saw how most people played, what they liked and what they didn't and incorporated it into 5th. It is regarded as the most successful edition since 4th(included). Yes, I know it has been given many times as an example, but it is the only edition AFAIK for which that was publicly stated. Ergo if AoS proves to be profitable there may be some ground to consider that this was what the audience (or atleast part of it) wanted . It may be an "acquired" desire though...
If they think AoS wouldn't crack the Fantasy base right in two they need to show me where they did their...
jonolikespie wrote: No, GW is stupid for trying to force a style of play on their customers (the people that pay their salaries) that said people don't seem to want.
What did GW force anybody to do? Their decision to stop WHFB was a financial one (as in, WHFB players weren't doing their part to pay their salaries), and AoS is a separate game, with separate goals, that nobody is being forced to play.
So their response to falling sales was to do something that would appeal to even less of the fans they have left?
With the AoS-ification of the Lizardmen range, I think GW have tipped their hand a little
The background for them has changed, but the models didn't.
This would suggest Orcs, Undead, the remnants of the Skaven and potentially Beastmen will likely get the same treatment - repacks and a Battletome explaining what they've been up to - and this can be achieved quite rapidly.
Chaos is possibly a little more complicated as from the Bloodbound releases I think that Undivided mortals will be the exception, rather than the norm - so we could be looking at power-specific marauder/warrior/chosen level minis, plus Battletome casting them as a separate faction.
The remnants - Elves, Dwarfs and Empire - no idea.
These factions don't exist within AoS, so my guess is a Stormcast-style release window of 8 weeks or so for the 'new' versions, with the 'old' range going direct-only.
I know it's been one of the lesser criticisms, but padding out the universe as rapidly as possible - and having a consistent 'look' to their retail space seems to fit GW's MO.
jonolikespie wrote: So their response to falling sales was to do something that would appeal to even less of the fans they have left?
You guys seem to get upset when GW treats gaming like a business, but you are quick to use "the business" as an excuse as to why your needs, and especially your needs, must be catered to at all times. Because fans. And of course, most fans agree with you because nobody who considered themselves a fan could have a different opinion.
Look, Age of Sigmar is a product to be sold to consumers, but it is also a creative endeavor on behalf of the game creators. Some decisions they made were for business reasons and some were made for creative reasons. And sometimes, those decisions don't benefit people like you or me because your wants are at odds with the needs and desires of the creative team. Or perhaps there's multiple people with different wants, and those wants are at odds, and you can't make a decision one way without angering the other people. So what do you do? You make the decision that you think is the best choice and hope you can create something worthy of that hard decision.
I'm a fan of Age of Sigmar, and if they built the game the way you obviously wanted them to, I would be left out in the cold. I didn't care for or want WHFB and still don't.
I guess what I'm saying is, stop being so selfish. There are lots of fans out there and your fandom is not any more or less "the one true way", and being a fan does not give you the right to demand that GW does things a certain way.
Well... congratulations. But not everyone has had the same path into wargaming, and it is entirely possible that someone can play minaitures games and never be exposed to anything other than points-based gaming.
Seriously, we can all surely agree that not everyone plays the same way?
Comparing open world video games to tabletop = fail. In so many ways it's not even funny. Moving on
That is a shame, as I think that point has a lot going for it.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: The point is "This game is being treated differently because it was released by GW".
I think you are right.
I think you could take any version of Warhammer, put it into the hands of another company and it could easily be overlooked.
The rules are not the attraction to GW games. It is the background behind them.
I would be quite happy to say that if the game was instead Age of Gnomes, I might not go anywhere near it. But it is not - it is Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, and it lets me push around my Chaos and Stormcast models round the table with a storyline I am quite enjoying. So, I agree with you but, for me, that is not the point.
If you are imposing limitations on army selection that aren't present in the rules, then you are altering the rules.
You really aren't. If I decide the limit myself to one Wraithknight per 2,000 points, I am not altering the rules, I am just being a reasonable human being. If I decide to make Heavy D-Cannon S10 instead of SD, then I am changing the rules.
What Bottle is doing is just deciding what army to take using whatever principles seem appealing at the time.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: nothing stopped players from playing WHFB/whatever game uses points/a universal balancing measurement exactly like AoS is being played and ignoring points/balancing measures. Nothing. You can toss the rules out and go full on lulz "look at my khornate skink army".
You are absolutely right. But, as I said in the OP (anyone remember that? ) how a game is presented will shape how most players approach it. You will get some who go beyond this, but it will not be usual.
If you put a points-based system at the heart of a game, that is how most players will be encouraged to play. Again, as I said in the OP, this is a very real thing and, to a designer, it can be a concern.
You are only playing AoS like this because GW is telling you to play it like this.
Encouraging.
Now, here is the thing about points-based vs. freeform.
Neither is better. Both have their place.
That does not mean that everyone will enjoy both (though I would encourage them to try). That does not mean everyone will 'get' both and yes, there are players out there who cannot see the attraction to a points-based system, as strange as that may seem.
I have a thing for AoS at the moment. I still play 8e (go High Elves!). I am glad both exist.
Answer me this: how many people did you see campaigning in the forums that points/balancing systems are bad before AoS hit?
This is not a good argument, as it leads to stagnation - fundamentally no new games, no new experiences on the tabletop. It is a Plus Point that a company (in any field) is willing to innovate (yes, I know...) and try something new. It does not automatically follow that everyone will think that a good thing.
Look, we are running the risk of going round in circles here. It is possible that those playing AoS may never successfully communicate why they are enjoying the game. But, if that is the case, what harm has it done you? Has AoS changed the way you play games at all?
Age of Sigmar is definitely a great litmus test at determining if a high profile company can go against what people consider "standard" and succeed.
As we have seen, going against the standard does severely crack the fan base in half and cause a lot of negative emotions.
Points have been a standard in tabletop gaming since the early to mid 90s (there were games in the 80s that used a form of points as well so you could probably go back there as well) so to go back to historical roots where game masters told you what forces to expect was unexpected and virtually unheard of today.
Its nice to see new things I'll say that. It does require a shift in mentality and I know I'm guilty of not being comfortable with that (i wrote azyr because I needed a balancing mechanism - so I'm a poster child of needing balancing structures)
And, as unfortunately somewhat expected, you're completely ignoring how he pretty much paints competitive players as the cancer of wargaming and writes the article in a way that is looks more like an act of division instead of inclusion.
I thought the dislike of WAAC players was a pretty common sentiment, not just in wargaming but in gaming in general?
And that's your major failing showing its face. You equate competitive with WAAC. Very biased and makes proper discussion with you very difficult.
Well... congratulations. But not everyone has had the same path into wargaming, and it is entirely possible that someone can play minaitures games and never be exposed to anything other than points-based gaming.
Seriously, we can all surely agree that not everyone plays the same way?
Comparing open world video games to tabletop = fail. In so many ways it's not even funny. Moving on
That is a shame, as I think that point has a lot going for it.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: The point is "This game is being treated differently because it was released by GW".
I think you are right.
I think you could take any version of Warhammer, put it into the hands of another company and it could easily be overlooked.
The rules are not the attraction to GW games. It is the background behind them.
I would be quite happy to say that if the game was instead Age of Gnomes, I might not go anywhere near it. But it is not - it is Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, and it lets me push around my Chaos and Stormcast models round the table with a storyline I am quite enjoying. So, I agree with you but, for me, that is not the point.
If you are imposing limitations on army selection that aren't present in the rules, then you are altering the rules.
You really aren't. If I decide the limit myself to one Wraithknight per 2,000 points, I am not altering the rules, I am just being a reasonable human being. If I decide to make Heavy D-Cannon S10 instead of SD, then I am changing the rules.
What Bottle is doing is just deciding what army to take using whatever principles seem appealing at the time.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: nothing stopped players from playing WHFB/whatever game uses points/a universal balancing measurement exactly like AoS is being played and ignoring points/balancing measures. Nothing. You can toss the rules out and go full on lulz "look at my khornate skink army".
You are absolutely right. But, as I said in the OP (anyone remember that? ) how a game is presented will shape how most players approach it. You will get some who go beyond this, but it will not be usual.
If you put a points-based system at the heart of a game, that is how most players will be encouraged to play. Again, as I said in the OP, this is a very real thing and, to a designer, it can be a concern.
You are only playing AoS like this because GW is telling you to play it like this.
Encouraging.
Now, here is the thing about points-based vs. freeform.
Neither is better. Both have their place.
That does not mean that everyone will enjoy both (though I would encourage them to try). That does not mean everyone will 'get' both and yes, there are players out there who cannot see the attraction to a points-based system, as strange as that may seem.
I have a thing for AoS at the moment. I still play 8e (go High Elves!). I am glad both exist.
Answer me this: how many people did you see campaigning in the forums that points/balancing systems are bad before AoS hit?
This is not a good argument, as it leads to stagnation - fundamentally no new games, no new experiences on the tabletop. It is a Plus Point that a company (in any field) is willing to innovate (yes, I know...) and try something new. It does not automatically follow that everyone will think that a good thing.
Look, we are running the risk of going round in circles here. It is possible that those playing AoS may never successfully communicate why they are enjoying the game. But, if that is the case, what harm has it done you? Has AoS changed the way you play games at all?
Unfortunately I do believe that we will be running circles, and we never will stop doing so. It's been long enough.
However - and quite honestly - your possibility of a valid comparison between Open world video games and tabletop FFA games like AoS intrigues me. Would you care to elaborate?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RoperPG wrote: With the AoS-ification of the Lizardmen range, I think GW have tipped their hand a little
The background for them has changed, but the models didn't.
This would suggest Orcs, Undead, the remnants of the Skaven and potentially Beastmen will likely get the same treatment - repacks and a Battletome explaining what they've been up to - and this can be achieved quite rapidly.
Chaos is possibly a little more complicated as from the Bloodbound releases I think that Undivided mortals will be the exception, rather than the norm - so we could be looking at power-specific marauder/warrior/chosen level minis, plus Battletome casting them as a separate faction.
The remnants - Elves, Dwarfs and Empire - no idea.
These factions don't exist within AoS, so my guess is a Stormcast-style release window of 8 weeks or so for the 'new' versions, with the 'old' range going direct-only.
I know it's been one of the lesser criticisms, but padding out the universe as rapidly as possible - and having a consistent 'look' to their retail space seems to fit GW's MO.
I honestly don't think anyone would consider any other treatment to the existing factions apart from what they are currently having. Skaven are pretty much already the same but in AoS. And I believe that even the elves, dwarves and humans will be getting this treatment as well. At the most they'll be getting some new "core units", but that's it. Perhaps a shiny monster/character or two. I don't see GW has having enough manpower to pull three full releases like the Stormcast/Khorne so soon. But I may be wrong
On another note, we're already settling into our regularly scheduled armybook/codex release cycle...
Points have been a standard in tabletop gaming since the early to mid 90s (there were games in the 80s that used a form of points as well so you could probably go back there as well) so to go back to historical roots where game masters told you what forces to expect was unexpected and virtually unheard of today.
Actually, now you've made me curious as to the history of point systems. I went and checked my books for Star Wars Miniature Battles, published way back in '93, and it has points. But the points are more variable because you had a greater control over what was in a unit and how it was equipped - it was basically the RPG. So this many figures at this point cost, equipped with this armor at this point cost, holding these weapons, etc. However, the scenarios in the book had all of this stuff laid out for you. It would dictate what units were on the map and their designs. But they'd also include a "homebrew version" where you could play the scenario with your own teams, 2000 points per side. So points were used as a sort of balance, but as an afterthought. The points were used more to control army creation and improve diversity.
Then I checked out Car Wars Classic (I also have Deluxe, but Classic is closer to what it looked like in the 80s, I think). It has a system for designing cars that uses two point costs: money and weight. So you could start with a heavy body, which would give you more weight but at a higher cost. So you'd have to balance a feature with how much it cost and whether it would fit on your vehicle. Without going through the whole rules, it looks like it was more RPGish, where you'd start with a base amount of money to build your first car, and through a campaign system, earn more money you could use to build more and better cars. The point system was used to make car design more complicated, but didn't seem to affect balance. The cost of the vehicle seemed to be the general purpose point value used to see how powerful a vehicle was at a glance. One of the scenarios gives one player $17,000 to build one car while the other players share $25,000 to buy/design at least 5 cycles - so it is used to balance scenarios, but not in an equal points = equal balance sort of way.
These two games were the late 80s, early 90s, and both of them use points to build your units more than a general purpose "balance value". In both cases you pick a starting point which sets up the points available for initial creation, with the ability to go beyond it for additional cost. So at least in these two cases, the points were used less for balance and more as a restrain on army creation. I think some RPGs at the time, like Champions, also used points as a creation restraint. The points were used to buy abilities and models, so it was more of a currency, and even then there were other limitations that created the balance rather than the points themselves.
And that's your major failing showing its face. You equate competitive with WAAC. Very biased and makes proper discussion with you very difficult.
No, I associate players referred to as "tournament players" with WAAC. I think tournaments encourage and reward WAAC playing, and I think that WAAC players are most at home in that environment. Just like psychopaths are four times more likely to be found in middle management, I think WAAC are four times more likely to be found in tournaments. And yeah, I think the derogatory term "tournament players" is referring to these people specifically.
I don't have a problem with people who like to play competitively. I have a problem with people who can only see a game as competitive and refuse to acknowledge, or simply can't, the many other qualities and play styles that exist.
Mymearan wrote: No, it was to try and gain new ones. We'll see in a few years whether they succeeded or not.
I can understand that, but I just don't know if it was worth the risk of severing the existing player base in half.
It could've been done so much better... but I digress.
Seeing as WHFB was dead, it was probably go big or go home. A small adjustment to the rules for 9th edition and some new models as usual wouldn't have made a big difference.
The Jervis article was written over 15 years ago, and WAAC was only an acronym only after 2008 or so (near as I can tell). In the editorial, almost all the things he complains about, including "... because all they were interested in was winning games", describes WAAC players, not just any random player who happened to wander into a tournament.
And he foolishly and incorrectly ascribes that to tournament play and bemoans that whole scene and it's players, whilst simultaneously 'not getting it'. Typical really - it's 'those people' who are having fun the wrong way that are ruining it all - how dare they have fun and enjoy their hobby in a different manner? And you then go on with that doozy of jervis', and ascribe tournament play and Waac as the same thing, which is just as ignorant and small minded.
No, I associate players referred to as "tournament players" with WAAC.
Then you are narrow minded, snide, ill informed, condascending, judgemental and incredibly rude. As well as being completely in the wrong. How about you get off your high horse and stop pretending to be so high and mighty?
I think tournaments encourage and reward WAAC playing, and I think that WAAC players are most at home in that environment.
No. Poorly designed and often 'open sandbox' games with lots of grey areas, room for manoeuvre and interpretation and ambiguities encourage Waac behaviour. If anything, aos has as much if not more scope for Waac play without serious restrictions, house ruling, and various accommodations and co operative behaviour. Take that away, and the game very quickly devolves into a cesspit.
Just like psychopaths are four times more likely to be found in middle management, I think WAAC are four times more likely to be found in tournaments.
I've seen plenty Waac players trolling casual gaming circuits across a wide variety of games in my time. Your assumption doesn't necessarily hold up. And thanks for the association between psychopaths and people you so readily and happily dismiss. You're something else, you know that?
And yeah, I think the derogatory term "tournament players" is referring to these people specifically.
Then that term is foolishly incorrectly applied. And you are just as foolish and just as incorrect for agreeing with it. Tournament player is not synonymous with Waac. A tournament player is just that - a player who plays in tournaments. And there are as many motivations for thst as there are players. Don't be so snide and small minded.
Mymearan wrote: No, it was to try and gain new ones. We'll see in a few years whether they succeeded or not.
I can understand that, but I just don't know if it was worth the risk of severing the existing player base in half.
It could've been done so much better... but I digress.
Seeing as WHFB was dead, it was probably go big or go home. A small adjustment to the rules for 9th edition and some new models as usual wouldn't have made a big difference.
Surely there were ways to 'go big' without bleeding current customers, though. As it is, Age of Sigmar now has to attract enough new players to make up for the loss of the old ones and reach whatever sales goal GW didn't think WHFB was meeting.
Almost all games end up being split in two communities of varying sizes: casual players and competitive players. Neither is "better" but they are different.
The casual community tends embrace randomness, "fun factor," aesthetics, story etc. The competitive community wants tightness of rules, mechanics and finds its fun factor in that.
The competitive community also tends to become a hive of negativity and off-putting to casuals. They tend to resist change.
I think GW was under the impression their game had catered to the competitive community for too long and that was a factor in its stagnation. AoS is a game made for the casual community.
People can certainly have degrees of both, but they tend to fall more so in one camp than the other. I've been in both camps in many different game systems. It's something you see everywhere, with the same stories and arguments playing out, just with different games and names involved.
As has been said, the bet with AoS is that the new market it's aimed at (made partially from the old market) will be bigger and more sustainable. I think the competitive community can still find joy in AoS with home-brew comp systems, but it will depend just how resistant to that idea and playstyle each person is. And there's nothing wrong with that, you like what you like.
coldgaming wrote: Almost all games end up being split in two communities of varying sizes: casual players and competitive players. Neither is "better" but they are different.
The casual community tends embrace randomness, "fun factor," aesthetics, story etc. The competitive community wants tightness of rules, mechanics and finds its fun factor in that.
The competitive community also tends to become a hive of negativity and off-putting to casuals. They tend to resist change.
I think GW was under the impression their game had catered to the competitive community for too long and that was a factor in its stagnation. AoS is a game made for the casual community.
People can certainly have degrees of both, but they tend to fall more so in one camp than the other. I've been in both camps in many different game systems. It's something you see everywhere, with the same stories and arguments playing out, just with different games and names involved.
As has been said, the bet with AoS is that the new market it's aimed at (made partially from the old market) will be bigger and more sustainable. I think the competitive community can still find joy in AoS with home-brew comp systems, but it will depend just how resistant to that idea and playstyle each person is. And there's nothing wrong with that, you like what you like.
Ummm.... you do realize the most competitive events in the world usually have a huge following of casuals? Olympic games, Sports, board games, card games and video games etc. The vast majority of both casual players and competitive players want better rules. Nobody is put off frisby because competitive frisby is too hard core...
It's just a minority of casual players who can't think about the bigger picture who think having worse rules is better because it forces all but the dozens of them to quit and move on.
Then you are narrow minded, snide, ill informed, condascending, judgemental and incredibly rude. As well as being completely in the wrong. How about you get off your high horse and stop pretending to be so high and mighty?
WTF dude? Don't be a dick.
Look, if you feel insulted by what I said, then my apologies. I thought WAAC was one of those, "If you don't know a WAAC player, you are the WAAC player" sort of deals, where you could complain about them at length because the very people you were complaining about would nod in agreement, thinking you were talking about someone else. Given the vitriol and open contempt in your response, this is obviously not true. So my bad for misjudging the situation.
I will say this though, maybe Age of Sigmar isn't ever going to be your cup of tea...
It's just a minority of casual players who can't think about the bigger picture who think having worse rules is better because it forces all but the dozens of them to quit and move on.
It's just a minority of casual players who can't think about the bigger picture who think having worse rules is better because it forces all but the dozens of them to quit and move on.
And who, exactly, would that minority be?
The few people who refer to all who want a game to reach it's potential as WAAC players who should quit X game. Usually they are full of hatred and constantly attempt to get on a high horse and are contrarian in nature.
Ah, you mean a high horse like the people who say their game is the kingslayer of 8th and will inevitably overtake the glorified garagehammer game that is 9th.
Pot. Kettle. Black. plenty of your own comments have been flat out rude, crude, nasty and downright insulting. Do t be surprised when people get angry and annoyed at some of your comments.
Look, if you feel insulted by what I said, then my apologies.
Keep them. Your apologies are worthless to me. This isn't the first time I've called you out on some of your appalling and narrow minded comments and attitudes. how about not saying nasty things in the first place, like your constant belittling comments regarding those people who play games differently to you? Just a thought, mind.
Just above, you equated tournament players with being Waac players. You even declared that you use the term 'tournament player' as a derogatory reference. Waac is one of the worst behaviour thst exists in our hobby, and you just tarred one huge segment of the playerbase with that label. And I seriously doubt you've met all tournament players in order to decide on that judgement. How about your reaction to someone saying 'narrative players are tools'. Not so nice, is it? How about growing up, and not playing such juvenile games.
I thought WAAC was one of those, "If you don't know a WAAC player, you are the WAAC player" sort of deals, where you could complain about them at length because the very people you were complaining about would nod in agreement, thinking you were talking about someone else. Given the vitriol and open contempt in your response, this is obviously not true. So my bad for misjudging the situation.
And yet You just said Waac and tournament player were one and the same thing. Stop moving goalposts. Guess why there is vitriol and open contempt in my voice. Read what you wrote. Replace 'tournament player' with 'aos player'. Red flag in front of a bull for me. Outright nasty, hostile and nasty comments like these have no place in this hobby. They are demeaning and insulting do nothing but drag up bitter feeling and divisive attitudes.
Oh we all know Waac players. I know several and I refuse to play agains them and warn others away from them. They are negative play experiences and are outright bad for the community. But I don't go around and tarring whole sections of the playerbase (whose only 'crime' is to play wargames in a different manner to me) with such derogatory terms and liken 'all of them' to Waac players like you just did above. There is a difference.
I will say this though, maybe Age of Sigmar isn't ever going to be your cup of tea...
And yet, I genuinely enjoy that whole style of play that aos encourages. So let's get thst clear and stop you misrepresenting me. Again.
My reasons for disliking aos (whilst enjoying the 'narrative'/'diy' style war gaming immensely) are simple:
1. I don't like the models. I dislike gw's aesthetic. They're crude, squat and out of proportion.
2. I dislike the game mechanics. it uses the the same clunky, crude and unwieldy warhammer Dna that's been there since the 80s as a game engine. In game mechanics, it's a fossil. There are far more interesting game mechanics developed In The last thirty years. If it had been based on the lotr game mechanics instead, or squad based game with genuine reaction mechanisms to promote fluid gameplay along the lines of mongoose's old starship troopers, then I would be hugely interested.
3. Crucially. Aos does nothing new for me. I am very enthusiastic about diy/ narrative/player driven wargames. I so it most Friday evenings. If anything, I do it more than warmachine. We generally so it with flames of war, historical rules sets, infinity, dropzone commander (sometimes), and we have some ideas for firestorm armada home brews as well. Aos gives me nothing thst I can't already get. Along with models I don't like, game mechanics I find dull and uninteresting, and lore that doesn't grab me, I have no reason to jump on that boat.
But diy/narrative/player driven wargames. Very much 'my cup of tea'. Which is why I post here as posters like mongoosematt provide some very interesting insights that I can get value from.
MongooseMatt wrote: Excellent, had a nasty feeling you might have meant AoS players in general.
Shall we just agree to ignore the hate-filled?
No this happens with a lot of games. Ignoring is boring. Especially in a flame thread.
Baron Klatz wrote: Ah, you mean a high horse like the people who say their game is the kingslayer of 8th and will inevitably overtake the glorified garagehammer game that is 9th.
Where have you read this? I have not even finished making my game and it is likely my game will be my own garage game. AOS killed 8th and everybody knows/says this.
Excellent, had a nasty feeling you might have meant AoS players in general.
Nope. . If I'd have wanted to say that, I'd have said something along the lines of 'aos players are tools'. Which I've never done. I have no issues with aos players in general. Just the ones making snide comments and belittling players who play other games and other ways. And to be fair, I have my issues with snide commends on the 'aos is terrible' in equal measure. I've stood out against both attitudes here whilst trying to be positive and honest about the merits and disadvantages of both these styles.
Thing is Matt - you are reasonable. You say something's that I disagree with, and some of your points can seem to be a bit blinkered at first glance, but when you're pushed to explain, you are quite forthright, open, honest and inclusive in how you expand on your points. You don't just casually dismiss the other perspective. Like me, you seem to play a variety of games in a variety of different ways. Added to that, and crucially for me, you promote an appealing, positive and proactive attitude to gaming. I'll respect you and listen to you for that reason alone.
Thst said - some of the fellows on the 'yay aos' side have some really blinkered opinions that are outright hostile and derogatory and really have no place here. Don't expect me to stay quiet on them.
Deadnight wrote: squad based game with genuine reaction mechanisms to promote fluid gameplay along the lines of mongoose's old starship troopers,
Out of interest have you tried Judge Dredd? I ask, as it is a direct descendant of the Starship Troopers rules...
With respect, while I enjoyed victory at sea, I've been burned by mongoose in the past, with various wargames and RPGs. I'm wary of investing again. Plus, I never really read much into dreads lore or followed its comics. All I really know is the Karl urban movie (which is brilliant)
Starship troopers was great, but flawed and severely limited in scope. But it was brilliant in other ways and probsbly a decade ahead of its time. If anything, I'd lean towards Corvus belli and their infinity game as my absolute favourite Wargame and miniature range.
If you are imposing limitations on army selection that aren't present in the rules, then you are altering the rules.
You really aren't. If I decide the limit myself to one Wraithknight per 2,000 points, I am not altering the rules, I am just being a reasonable human being. If I decide to make Heavy D-Cannon S10 instead of SD, then I am changing the rules.
What Bottle is doing is just deciding what army to take using whatever principles seem appealing at the time.
Except he wasn't. The post I referenced was talking about using altered army creation rules to set up the game. It was only after he claimed to want to play the game by the rules that the story shifted to just him limiting his own army.
Which, as I said, is a different thing to agreeing with your opponent to alter the rules.
If you are imposing limitations on army selection that aren't present in the rules, then you are altering the rules.
You really aren't. If I decide the limit myself to one Wraithknight per 2,000 points, I am not altering the rules, I am just being a reasonable human being. If I decide to make Heavy D-Cannon S10 instead of SD, then I am changing the rules.
What Bottle is doing is just deciding what army to take using whatever principles seem appealing at the time.
Except he wasn't. The post I referenced was talking about using altered army creation rules to set up the game. It was only after he claimed to want to play the game by the rules that the story shifted to just him limiting his own army.
Which, as I said, is a different thing to agreeing with your opponent to alter the rules.
No, you misread. Both me and my opponent can take whatever we want, those are the rules, and if we both agree on a limitation that's fine and also in the rules in my opinion.
At the end of day, I wonder why you are even arguing this against me? What does it matter to you? It's incredibly petty and unbefitting of a moderator in my opinion.
Deadnight wrote: squad based game with genuine reaction mechanisms to promote fluid gameplay along the lines of mongoose's old starship troopers,
Out of interest have you tried Judge Dredd? I ask, as it is a direct descendant of the Starship Troopers rules...
I think after reading quite a bit of this discussion and trying to understand both sides, I came to two conclusions.
1. The bulk of AoS is not for me, I'll probably keep it as a back-up game and play it in small warbands. A lot of the players who really like it don't seem like the kind of player I would want to play.
2. I should by proxie avoid any and all Mongoose Publishing games. As a player and customer, I don't really want to be talked down too, and Osprey seems to be pushing out a lot more smaller "niche" games that can be easily picked up and played.
Bottle wrote: ...and if we both agree on a limitation that's fine and also in the rules in my opinion.
If you both agree on the limitation that isn't present in the rules, then that is pretty much the definition of changing the rules.
It wasn't a part of the game until you made it a part of the game.
At the end of day, I wonder why you are even arguing this against me? .
Because you had made two statements that seemed contradictory, and your subsequent clarification of those points didn't make any sense.
It's not a big deal. Just a point of discussion.
Again. Let's end this as we can't agree. The rules say we can bring whatever we want. To me that's an open invitation to place any limitations or none at all, it's all good. To you that means I am altering the rules. Whatever. It doesn't matter.
pox wrote: 2. I should by proxie avoid any and all Mongoose Publishing games. As a player and customer, I don't really want to be talked down too, and Osprey seems to be pushing out a lot more smaller "niche" games that can be easily picked up and played.
I don't think it was Matt's intention to talk down to anyone. He just tends to be fairly passionate about his gaming.
Which is all well and good. At the end of the day, if people are playing this game and enjoying it, that's great. I think for myself, when I do finally get around to dusting off my WHFB stuff, I'll be digging out the 4th edition books that I started with.
thekingofkings wrote: I am finally approaching my 60th game of AoS, I am not a "fanboy" but I am not a "hater" either. But some of my observations from this experience is, this game is awful. It really is hack work. they did nothing new or original here. They sold us a watered down version of warhammer and then half/arsed it. That doesn't make it not fun to play from time to time and we do. It is not "fast" so far it has taken us just as long to play it as it did warhammer. They are completely different games in the same way that mordheim and warhammer were different. It does have some really nice parts to it, while I despise the aesthetics of the warscrolls, they are nice and convenient. the models are still the ones we know and love (and better yet, we all have) While the fluff made some..."changes" to the setting, its really not important to the game. there are a lot of awful games that can be really fun, take "Carnage" for example, or even Dark Heaven: apocalypse. these were also pretty awful games that can be fun to play. That is my post 50 game assessment and its my opinion, AoS is FUN, but its a pretty shoddy product. having been a GW customer for a long time, I am also convinced AoS will not survive in its current form, we have 7 editions of 40k and 8 editions of warhammer, AoS is pretty much doomed. it will go through edition hacks and we will be right back here argueing about which AoS edition is better in a few years. That is if GW doesnt go down to being a second or third tier company, which is very possible. I use the examples of White Wolf, TSR, and FASA to prove that point, all three were THE titans of their day, all three are extinct. AoS will survive and change. I like it about as much as I liked warhammer fantasy, but in no way am I giving GW a pass for this "effort" its bad, and they could have done a hell of a lot better, the talent is there. That said my vampires are looking forward to fighting the hated sigmarines wednesday night for game #60.
60 games is pretty incredible. I don't think I've played more than 30-40 games of 40k in the 2 years I've been playing it.
It comes from having not much of a life and too much time on my hands.
coldgaming wrote:Almost all games end up being split in two communities of varying sizes: casual players and competitive players. Neither is "better" but they are different.
Actually I'd say no games do this other than GW games. Pretty much everything else I have tried on the market is balanced enough that a tourney player will have the advantage over a casual player, but there is no great split down the middle of the community where both stides have to avoid each other for their own good.
And that's your major failing showing its face. You equate competitive with WAAC. Very biased and makes proper discussion with you very difficult.
No, I associate players referred to as "tournament players" with WAAC. I think tournaments encourage and reward WAAC playing, and I think that WAAC players are most at home in that environment. Just like psychopaths are four times more likely to be found in middle management, I think WAAC are four times more likely to be found in tournaments. And yeah, I think the derogatory term "tournament players" is referring to these people specifically.
I don't have a problem with people who like to play competitively. I have a problem with people who can only see a game as competitive and refuse to acknowledge, or simply can't, the many other qualities and play styles that exist.
Tourney's are the WORST environment for WAACs and it is insulting to lump all tourney players in with them. WAACs are just that, they mean to win at ALL costs, that means bending the rules, fudging dice rolls and picking fights with people weaker than them (or brand new to the game). They want to steamroll over an opponent who had no chance of winning with a list that plays itself so they don't have to do anything. To a tourney player there is no better game than one who's outcome isn't decided until the final moments, where victory is snatched from the jaws of defeat by superior playing against a superior opponent.
Actually I think the infamous page 5 of Warmachine covers this very well. There is no honour in picking on the smallest kid in the playground, go find the biggest, meanest SOB around and punch him right in the face. That's the competitive mindset.
A tourney environment has skilled players who know the rules and TOs who can make judgement calls if the WAACer starts demanding that a rule interpretation means X instead of Y. Players across from them will be looking to see what their dice rolled, not allowing them to get away with rolling, quickly sweeping the dice back up and simply declaring 'I made all my saves'.
WAACers thrive on grey areas in the rules and loose restrictions. Say what you want about points systems but never before has anyone been able to buy and field a potentially limitless amount of bloodthirsters.
jonolikespie wrote: Tourney's are the WORST environment for WAACs and it is insulting to lump all tourney players in with them. WAACs are just that, they mean to win at ALL costs, that means bending the rules, fudging dice rolls and picking fights with people weaker than them (or brand new to the game).
I was under the impression that the gamers who bend rules, fudge rolls, play your turns for you, use rules differently for themselves than for others, and pick fights were TFG. And yeah, I imagine having judges there would prevent them from getting away with that sort of stuff.
WAACers are gamers who will go to tournaments with a cheese heavy list they downloaded from the internet, buying six dozen of the same unit to exploit loopholes in the rules, using hyper-literal interpretations of the rules that run counter to the spirit in which they were written, and generally minmaxing everything to such an extreme that the game becomes an open mockery of itself. They put their own victory ahead of the intended experience of the game designers (and any gamer who doesn't also subscribe to the same philosophy). Basically, if the game allows an advantage, even by accident, then they will take it without hesitation. I think they refer to such behavior as "being the better gamer".
That's the competitive mindset.
I believe the competitive mindset is, I can run a cheese list to gain a lazy advantage because the rules allow it, and besides, everyone else is doing it too.
jonolikespie wrote:No. A WAAC gamer is basically just a TFG, both of which are very different from competitive.
Unsure of myself, I went around a bit and looked at how it was being used, and I saw several places using it to mean TFG and several places using it to describe cheesy tournament players. To avoid future confusion, I'll avoid using the term. But I can't refer to them as tournament players, because people start going #NotAllTournamentPlayers, so I'll just call them MinMaxHoles.
Eldarain wrote:Is there a wargaming company whose players are more divided and vitriolic towards each other?
I couldn't say, but it's a gamer thing. Video games are FILLED with this sort of stuff. MMO communities can get downright gruesome (oh, I how miss the solo versus group player threads). Certain fandoms, like the No Mutants Allowed community having quite different opinions on Bethesda's Fallout vision. Ask a gaming community about the difference between translation and localization some day. And recently, someone decided to introduce fourth wave feminism to gaming, and it's just been a horrible place ever since. Board gamers tend to be a pretty genial bunch though...
jonolikespie wrote:No. A WAAC gamer is basically just a TFG, both of which are very different from competitive.
Unsure of myself, I went around a bit and looked at how it was being used, and I saw several places using it to mean TFG and several places using it to describe cheesy tournament players. To avoid future confusion, I'll avoid using the term. But I can't refer to them as tournament players, because people start going #NotAllTournamentPlayers, so I'll just call them MinMaxHoles.
Eldarain wrote:Is there a wargaming company whose players are more divided and vitriolic towards each other?
I couldn't say, but it's a gamer thing. Video games are FILLED with this sort of stuff. MMO communities can get downright gruesome (oh, I how miss the solo versus group player threads). Certain fandoms, like the No Mutants Allowed community having quite different opinions on Bethesda's Fallout vision. Ask a gaming community about the difference between translation and localization some day. And recently, someone decided to introduce fourth wave feminism to gaming, and it's just been a horrible place ever since. Board gamers tend to be a pretty genial bunch though...
You're very prejudiced against people that enjoy a different type of game than you do. I suggest try seeing it from their perspective before you continue insulting anyone that enjoys a fair and well fought game.
For example, I think there is absolutely a space in the gaming world for a game like AOS, a relaxed rules, just enjoy it kind of game. I don't think AOS is that game, but I understand why people would be drawn to it. You on the other hand thinks that anyone who likes a tactical challenge is the son of perdition.
I have to say I always thought competitive meant you played to win the game.
In the new semantics, this seems to be the opposite of narrative gaming, where you play to enjoy a mutual story development. I do enjoy that kind of playing, but it seems to me more of an RPG thing than a tabletop wargame thing.
I don't regard the development of a battle as a story, as such, I regard it as a battle. However, playing out a battle is a very enjoyable pastime whether you win or lose, providing it isn't a walk-over for either side.
Similarly a campaign is a campaign, not the life story of the people involved.
I do enjoy that kind of playing, but it seems to me more of an RPG thing than a tabletop wargame thing.
Traditionally, yes, but worth mentioning that RPGs grew from wargames. However, it is really just another style of gaming, like tournament play versus map-based campaigns.
Kilkrazy wrote: I have to say I always thought competitive meant you played to win the game.
There's nothing wrong with the goal of victory, but it is how you choose to achieve it. Minmaxing isn't cheating, but taken to an extreme, it goes against the spirit of the experience and makes for an unpleasant time. There's a reason why there's articles written, condemning such behavior and dozens of threads complaining about them. It's why there are multiple derogatory nicknames for them across the entire spectrum of gaming. If it was the "one true way", people would recognize their "tactical superiority" rather than curse them out of the side of their mouth. In fact, I think that it is an eternal mystery to them why other players don't respect them for being the superior gamers.
In the new semantics, this seems to be the opposite of narrative gaming, where you play to enjoy a mutual story development. I do enjoy that kind of playing, but it seems to me more of an RPG thing than a tabletop wargame thing.
RPGs are directly descended from wargames. DnD was a spinoff of a Chainmail module. And, I guess it should be noted, RPGs also have problems with this sort of players, although they are called Munchkins. I've heard them described as "their own ambition outstrips their sense of fair play", which sounds about right. Hell, that's better than MinMaxHole anyway, so I'll use it.
I don't regard the development of a battle as a story, as such, I regard it as a battle.
There aren't just two sides. It's not narrative gamers versus competitive gamers. There's a wide variety styles and natures to the players of games, and there is room for all sorts - even Munchkins. It's just that they are so loud and so numerous in wargaming, to the point that some wargames literally are created for their pleasure, that they tend to make the genre unwelcoming to players who don't agree with their... let's call it "life philosophy". I'll bet if you went around and asked everybody what they liked least about wargaming as a hobby, the first thing would be... well, price. The second would be Games Workshop. But no doubt that the third thing would be the WAAC players.
Wargames, being explicitly competitive in nature, tend to have a much more vocal, and possessive group of Munchkins who think the entire genre is about them, demanding that games change to suit their needs, and believing that anybody who isn't a Munchkin is just a bad player. I'd say the majority of the people who are STILL arguing against AoS have been Munchkin players faced with the unusual situation of not being able to minmax a game. All the other types of players have moved on, but they're still here because they consider it a personal insult that someone would intentionally design a game with loopholes so big and obvious that the only way to actually enjoy the game is to choose NOT minmax it. I suspect a large part of their arguing is trying to find some chink in the philosophy - some element that can be minmaxed, thus justifying their continued belief that wargaming, because it is competitive and involves numbers, is all about them. It's why the lack of points is so confounding to them - you can just create any army you want? How do you minmax that?
You are absolutely right. But, as I said in the OP (anyone remember that? ) how a game is presented will shape how most players approach it. You will get some who go beyond this, but it will not be usual.
If you put a points-based system at the heart of a game, that is how most players will be encouraged to play. Again, as I said in the OP, this is a very real thing and, to a designer, it can be a concern.
That's an interesting point, indeed. How the game rules are presented are really important about what the players will perceive as how the game is intended to be played.
What I find quite strange, however, is your statement on AoS being balanced as it is, and then talking about how the players can get around to have a game balanced.
Because, in the rules, it is just presented as "bring your collection on the board and play with it". Nothing is being told about the other player's agreement. And that's what some people here actually read. So, when you're saying AoS is intended to be played between reasonnable players who agree about what is fair and what is not...I believe it is more an interpretation about how you can play AoS.
I think it's the same than before; there are many ways to play AoS and the way you play it is just one of them.
Also, I find AoS has a "special treatment" because it has the GW/Warhammer brand on it. It is especially more true when you know the people who are behind it and still talk to them; you can't be totally objective when you are emotionnaly involved with the subject.
I don't think the game wouldn't have been treated the same if it was from another, unknown company and made by total stranger game designers. And I believe it isn't a question of background - you could have something with a rich story and a lot of details put there at the beginning, if you don't know the people behind, it wouldn't be the same if you growed up within a set universe for many years. And also know personally the designers.
Nothing precludes tabletop wargames from telling stories the same way RPGs do.
Nothing stops people from playing RPGs as a non-story telling device and as a series of mini tabletop competitive encounters where the goal is to win the encounter everytime.
I used to help organize and run D&D tournaments "back in the day" and the goal of those was to win.
They are just tools that can be used in multitudes of ways.
I was under the impression that the gamers who bend rules, fudge rolls, play your turns for you, use rules differently for themselves than for others, and pick fights were TFG. And yeah, I imagine having judges there would prevent them from getting away with that sort of stuff.
That is TFG, which is synonymous with WAAC. And TFGs are in all walks of life, and are not synonymous with your derogatory ‘tournament players’.
WAACers are gamers who will go to tournaments with a cheese heavy list they downloaded from the internet,
Remember, there is nothing wrong with ‘hard lists’, especially in the context of a tournament. ‘cheese’ as well is in the eye of the beholder. I’ve seen people post on dakka calling people out as ‘cheesy’ for putting their marines in rhinos. So No. Again, you are being prejudiced and downright narrow minded. WAACers are gamers who will shamelessly take that same cheese heavy list to any format - casual play in particular, and will noobstalk, and bend, twist, bully, hassle, distract, intimidate or cheat their way to a win. Hence ‘win at all costs’.
One of the Waac players I know (and refuse to play) plays WMH and only rarely goes to tournaments. All of a sudden, all of his Douchery comes to nought because he meets people that are fully up on the rules and won't stand for his antics. So he trolls the more casual gaming nights and often goes without games as a result, because most people have learned what to expect. The few that he does get in end up being a joke. If he sees your list, he will deliberately hard counter and net deck you. If he sees your list, he will try to set up all the board terrain to his sole advantage. He goes after noobs, and goes all out. And this is on casual game nights too, mind...
WAAC is an attitude that is certainly not exclusive to ‘tournament play’. Now let’s be fair- WAACs will certainly go to tournaments (as will casual players, competitive players, and everything in between*) But they will certainly go everywhere else there is gaming as well, and especially to places where they can get easy wins. WAAC players will play at home, in shops, in clubs, in leagues and especially in casual play. You can find them across the table from you in any setting with any gaming format. Don’t assume that WAAC and tournament play are in league. WAAC is an attitude that is not exclusive to ‘gaming format’.
*I know a lot of gamers with other life commitments (family especially, jobs, other time consuming hobbies - in my case, long distance running commitments) for whom tournaments are simply the best way to ‘max out’ your gaming time, and get lots of games in a minimum of time with a minimum of fuss.
buying six dozen of the same unit to exploit loopholes in the rules,
Well, if the rules don’t have things like unit caps, then how is it a loophole? That’s a cop out. You also ignore the possibility that taking six dozen of something is simply a part of a themed army. And heaven forbid you are a guard or tyranid player where six dozen guardsmen or gaunts is one unit.
And again, this is not a tournament thing – WAAC players will exploit these same loopholes in the rules in the most casual and inappropriate settings too. If anything, they will prefer the latter.
using hyper-literal interpretations of the rules that run counter to the spirit in which they were written,
WAAC players thrive on loose, woolly, vague and poorly worded rule terminology. The ‘grey areas’ in a game. What you refer to here is a conflict between RAW (rules as written) and RAI (rules as intended) which is nothing more than the consequence of shoddy game design, and those same loose, woolly, vague and poorly worded rules and a lack of clear, watertight writing. Talking about ‘spirit’ in particular is a catch-all copout. Which is the typical state of GW games in particular and why they in particular are so open to abuse in every format. In games like WMH, there is no RAI. The rules are strictly RAW, and do and mean precisely what they say. WAAC players have no room to manoeuvre. There are no ‘hyper-literal interpretations counter to the spirit of the game’. There are the rules, plain and simple.
And again, WAAC players will do this in the most casual and inappropriate settings as well.
Be careful about talking about the 'intended spirit' of the game. That's quicksand you are stepping on. Thst can very quickly boil down to an exercise in arrogance where the high and mighty smugly try and dictate to the masses 'how' to play. And thst anything else is doing it wrong. When clearly, it is more complicated than that, especially in open sandbox games like gw.
and generally minmaxing everything to such an extreme that the game becomes an open mockery of itself.
Which is again, a feature of loose, woolly, vague and poorly worded rules and shoddy game design, rather than ‘tournament play’. Min maxing, for example isn’t really a feature of WMH.
WAACers are as happy to do this in a casual setting as tournaments.
They put their own victory ahead of the intended experience of the game designers (and any gamer who doesn't also subscribe to the same philosophy). Basically, if the game allows an advantage, even by accident, then they will take it without hesitation. I think they refer to such behavior as "being the better gamer".
Which, going back to your original assertion, has nothing to do with ‘going to tournaments’ and everything to do with exploiting loose, wooly, vague and poorly worded rules.
You are absolutely right. But, as I said in the OP (anyone remember that? ) how a game is presented will shape how most players approach it. You will get some who go beyond this, but it will not be usual.
If you put a points-based system at the heart of a game, that is how most players will be encouraged to play. Again, as I said in the OP, this is a very real thing and, to a designer, it can be a concern.
As a designer, do you ever take into account what your customers might want? Do you ever check and see if different wants can be fulfilled at the same time?
A good example is I never used miniatures while running a pathfinder game because I felt they pulled players out of the game, But my friend when he ran would always use miniatures because He felt the combat was a lot more clear and concise as far as enemy placement and cover/LoS rules. Is he wrong? does the use of models encourage power gaming? does not having them encourage role playing? If my buddy wants to run a pure combat campaign and his players want that are they playing wrong? if I have an entire game night with no combat am I running a game wrong?
D&D 3.5 and pathfinder are great because they have all the full miniature rules, and I just skipped that section. However, if I was designing the rules I don't think I would jettison the miniature rules simply because I personally felt they weren't adding to "how the game should be played." if I felt players might want to try a different approach that they haven't thought of or been exposed too, I personally would communicate this different way to play with a supplement or campaign designed around my preferred style of play.
The Generals Compendium was a great example of this, it both had "forge the narrative" articles for castles, boats, unusual terrain and campaign rules, but it also had rules in it for ultra competitive play. (The grudgematch rules.)
GW's complete lack of communication means I have no idea what their intent was, but you say you're friends with a lot of them, so maybe you can shed some light on this. It just seems like they decided that there should only be one way to play, and now anyone that doesn't want to play that way isn't a "true" GW customer.
Actually I believe the words that were more apt were that if you don't want to play GW has written for, that you are not their intended audience. Semantics yes, but one is definitely more of a hostile way of expressing than the other.
auticus wrote: Actually I believe the words that were more apt were that if you don't want to play GW has written for, that you are not their intended audience. Semantics yes, but one is definitely more of a hostile way of expressing than the other.
auticus wrote: Actually I believe the words that were more apt were that if you don't want to play GW has written for, that you are not their intended audience. Semantics yes, but one is definitely more of a hostile way of expressing than the other.
I have at some point owned every fantasy army except dark elves and Bretonian. I have owned every 40k army at some point. I have played for 20 years, easily painted up well over 5000 miniatures, and have sculpted everything from giant squgoths to greater chaos dragons. I own 15,000 points of painted Orks, and have scratch built everything from battlewagons to a great gargant and a blasta-bomma. I have held painting lessons, sculpting lessons, taught people to play, and ran a game store for a few years. I have played every edition of 40k, and started fantasy in 4th edition. I have played every specialist game, and just about every white dwarf game from the original BF gothic to the dwarf bar brawl to movie marines.
I have ran and organized official GW tournaments including regional 'Ard Boyz, have ran a 48 hour Apocolypse game that was played in shifts, built close to 20 terrain sets, and once played a 13,000 point fantasy battle game with my skaven vs. high elves, all fully painted. (my Skaven alone is over 800 painted models.)
Hell, I spent a year and a half building a custom Ork Evil Sunz motorcycle which is about to get a running light upgrade and I'm making a leather banner to go on its banner pole.
How in the hell am I not the "intended" audience?!?
How in the hell am I not the "intended" audience?!?
The comment you are answering seems to have some missing words or grammar that is making it hard for me to decide what he was referring to.
But if we are talking about AOS then nothing you have or have done in any other game from GW of necessity makes you the intended audience in AOS. You can still be the intended audience for 40k, you can still be the intended audience for miniature collecting (but not gaming) yet not the intended audience for AOS.
Not that I know anything about the intended audience for AOS, so I can't say whether you are or are not. Equally short of asking the designer neither can anyone else including yourself.
Well I think that if their new direction is geared toward casual play, less on serious play, that the amount or non amount of miniatures purchased in the past become a non factor.
Their rules as they exist today are bent toward the casual playing audience, regardless of if they have or do not have a large collection.
I've played whfb and 40k since the mid 90s so about 20 years myself, and I own a god awful amount of plastic and metal from GW, but AoS out of the box is not for me either and nor am I the intended audience without me having to modify the rules a bit to make it more to my liking.
If you are wanting a serious game with serious competition in an environment that fosters competitive events like the magic pro circuit, then GW is definitely not for you and you are definitely not their target audience.
Thats all really. You can't design a game with open parameters and expect it to appeal to competitive players, and I think GW knows that and I think GW doesn't care.
Which pairs the issue down to a root level - a company made a game not conducive to competition, where before for over 15 - 20 years they catered almost exclusively to competition, and its player base who were drawn to the game for competitive reasons or who were after a serious ruleset as opposed to a just for funsies ruleset are now upset.
Alessio during a Q&A he linked on his facebook page has even said as much - that kings of war is written to appeal to the tournament mindset player that is upset over Games Workshop's choice to move to a more casual non competitive gameset.
Andy Chamber on his facebook was talking about Jervis and said Jervis was "a rules writing genius" and that you cannot slam Jervis for the direction GW is going in now because Jervis is working with what the company is offering for parameters, and that something something games written for non competition are an "intriguing idea" that he himself had thought about before - but indicated that he didn't think the world was ready for a non competitive ruleset after 15-20 years of that being the standard (tournament style rulesets) because none of the other companies really wanted to deal with such a negative and flame-filled backlash, even though they considered the idea worth pursuing.
Will this work for Games Workshop? That remains to be seen. AoS is a casual ruleset written for casual players that have groups they play in that can govern themselves, in a world where players expect rulesets to lay out a standard and be able to be played at a masters level.
The big whizzing contest that I've seen in a lot of places is that the sides are jockeying for position over "who is the minority". On the internet front, it would definitely seem confirmation-bias would conclude that competitive styled players are a good chunk of the majority of wargamer posters so it would seem visibly that GW made a bad decision.
But if there's one thing I know about tthe people having fun with AoS, its that most of them that I know don't participate in online groups or forums at all so their voices aren't heard.
Time will be the ultimate decider. While I have made AoS work for me through comp, and I enjoy it, my gut instinct is that swimming upstream in the internet age is likely to get you killed and unfortunately if you are not marketing a game that fits in with the mainstream, you are not going to do well. As such I feel that AoS will either experience version 2.0 in the near future with more solid army building rules, or it will go the way of the hobbit and Games Workshop will be a 40k-only company.
Their rules as they exist today are bent toward the casual playing audience, regardless of if they have or do not have a large collection.
Not sure casual is the right word for it. Casuals are people who don't care and just use gaming as an excursion. Buying $80 models that require hours of assembling and painting is the exact opposite of casual. Not sure narrative gamers is the right term either.
I think it is the opposite of competitive, and that's cooperative. As in, gamers who want to cooperate on creating the best competitive experience. I guess that sounds like an oxymoron, but that's why you don't need points. You cooperative with your opponent to decide what armies you will play. I don't think middle ground like that exists in purely competitive play.
Sure - it depends on what word you want to use. I find in the wargaming community that words get used that others don't use quite often (it leads to many disagreements)
When I say casual player I am referring to a player that ultimately does not care if they win or lose, but are there for the experience, the socializing, or yes even cooperating with their opponent(s) to tell a compelling story.
I honestly love hearing the praise for AoS. To be fair, I haven't actually played the game, but I have read the rules, watched it being played, etc. I like it.
My local GW shop (where I go to play) is on the way home from work. I work 8-5, and they close at 7. Earliest I could be there is probably 5:30. So, even an 800 to 1000 point 40K game would be impossible because of time constraints of setup, play, teardown. A low model/wound count game that has a setup, play, and teardown time of less than an hour is ideal for me. Unless it's Kill Team, there's not much chance that would be possible in 40K. It's very possible in AoS, though.
SG
Automatically Appended Next Post: You are correct... GW definitely does not favor the gamer.
GW is a miniatures company first and a gaming company... somewhere down the list. I'm 100% sure that if you asked someone from GW, they'd some something very similar. They are not in the business of making games. They are in the business of making and selling miniatures. They provide rulebooks and codices for people who want to play in friendly games.
If they were a gaming company, they'd have hired much better game creators/writers. Or, better yet, they would have just given the "rule writing" part of the business to WizKids or Fantasy Flight and sold under the Games Workshop label so that they could still make a good amount of money off the rulebooks and codices.
That said, look at WizKids' and Fantasy Flight's miniatures. Detail-wise, they don't even begin to touch GW. GW's miniatures are on a level of detail and quality that neither of the other companies can get near.
So, I agree that GW doesn't favor the gamer. That has never been their goal. Their goal is to sell miniatures. If creating a game that was never meant to be competitive but only played as friendly games sells more miniatures, then they are accomplishing their goal. That said, just don't ever expect GW to actually write good rules. If GW would pay WizKids or Fantasy Flight to write the rules, then we'd have something that's probably much more balanced, far more competitive, and meant for tournaments. Then again, those kinds of rules might also make some people want to walk away from the game.
ServiceGames wrote: If GW would pay WizKids or Fantasy Flight to write the rules, then we'd have something that's probably much more balanced, far more competitive, and meant for tournaments.
GW used to be a games company, they aren't any more. That doesn't mean players have to accept gakky rules from them. I can't see GW ever outsourcing their rules, though. They seem to be obsessed with controlling everything in house.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW used to be a games company, they aren't any more.
Last I checked, GW was still a games company. Age of Sigmar is a game. 40k is a game. In two weeks, they are producing a Horus Heresy board game. Before that, Assassinorum. Dreadfleet. Space Hulk. Yeah, they've all got miniatures, but nobody is going around suggesting that Fantasy Flight Games isn't a games company (and some of their games are pretty terrible). Just because you don't like or don't respect Games Workshop or the games they ultimately make doesn't mean that they aren't a games company.
I'm reading this history of RPGs during the 1970s and in the introduction, it mentions that of the 30 companies profiled, only 4 are still around today in any capacity. Credit where credit is due.
Kilkrazy wrote: I can't see GW ever outsourcing their rules, though. They seem to be obsessed with controlling everything in house.
They outsource many rules to FFG. Chaos in the Old World, Warhammer: Invasion, Relic, Warhammer: Disc Warz, Bloodbowl Team Manager, Forbidden Stars, 40k Conquest, and even Warhammer Quest now. But they aren't going to outsource the rules to the games they actively develop themselves. Because they are a games company. Occasionally, they make games.
Sqorgar wrote: Last I checked, GW was still a games company.
Must have been a while ago, then. Because according to GW, they are in the business of selling toys to children, and their product consists of high quality miniatures bought by people whose hobby is ' buying Citadel miniatures'... Not gaming.
They make games. But it's been a while since they considered themselves a games company.
Kilkrazy wrote: GW used to be a games company, they aren't any more. That doesn't mean players have to accept gakky rules from them. I can't see GW ever outsourcing their rules, though. They seem to be obsessed with controlling everything in house.
I'd like for FFG to take over rules development but I fear they would have to clear cut another hectacre of the Amazon to make all of the tokens.
Must have been a while ago, then. Because according to GW, they are in the business of selling toys to children, and their product consists of high quality miniatures bought by people whose hobby is ' buying Citadel miniatures'... Not gaming.
I've heard this before, but not why. A little searching and I found a damning "toy soldiers" snippet. It took me a while to find the full "toy soldiers" quote so that I could see it in context:
Tom Kirby wrote:
I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own (lots of) miniatures. I shouldn’t just mention it in passing because feeding this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these characteristics in people I don’t know, but I do know that out there in the world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need – it’s not new (we didn’t create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan Merrett* and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it. There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.
I have to ask, is this where the idea that GW sees itself as a toy company for children comes from? Because the full quote doesn't suggest that at all.
I don't know, "Everything else we make and do is geared around that end," selling miniatures and "all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers"
Sounds like all they want to do is sell what they consider toys and everything, including the game, is just for that.
So, when people say, "GW makes AOS rules just to sell more and bigger miniatures and not to make a good game," seems to mirror GW's own point of view.
Sqorgar wrote: Last I checked, GW was still a games company. Age of Sigmar is a game. 40k is a game. In two weeks, they are producing a Horus Heresy board game. Before that, Assassinorum. Dreadfleet. Space Hulk. Yeah, they've all got miniatures, but nobody is going around suggesting that Fantasy Flight Games isn't a games company (and some of their games are pretty terrible). Just because you don't like or don't respect Games Workshop or the games they ultimately make doesn't mean that they aren't a games company.
They aren't a games company. They AoS and 40K are just a way of being able to use the miniatures you buy from them. They are a miniatures company who gives you a way to play with those miniatures with your friends.
SG
EDIT: Since I haven't seen anything about this in any AoS discussion yet, I'm going to assume that none of you all have ever played D&D or were around when WotC made the jump from ruleset 3.5e to 4e. Pretty much the exact same response as WHFB to AoS is getting. That said, I actually like 4e over 3.5e unlike many. But, WotC did do a good job of sending out rules for D&D Next (now known as 5e) and got a lot of feedback from DMs. 5e is by far the best version of the ruleset I've played so far. They really did a great job on that. Will GW do something similar? I doubt it. Why? Well, there's no real "DM" in Warhammer. And gathering together all the opinions of all the people that have some just isn't feasible.
There is also the court case where people looked through the transcript for funny quotes and found them claiming that customers hobby is buying the models etc. But someone else will know where to find that.
auticus wrote:Thats all really. You can't design a game with open parameters and expect it to appeal to competitive players, and I think GW knows that and I think GW doesn't care.
Yes you can, it just requires more effort than GW are willing to put in. Look at most any RPG, they are by their very nature infinitely more open than a wargame can ever be but companies producing them put in the time and effort to balance them and if the group wants to play on hardmode the GM has all the tools to make that happen.
Sqorgar wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: GW used to be a games company, they aren't any more.
Last I checked, GW was still a games company. Age of Sigmar is a game. 40k is a game. In two weeks, they are producing a Horus Heresy board game. Before that, Assassinorum. Dreadfleet. Space Hulk.
I'd just like to point out that for a company with 'games' in the name that is a pitiful amount of new games to release the last 10 years. Space Hulk was a remake of an old game. Dreadfleet sunk (I never get tired of that pun). Both of those were limited releases too. The assassin game I am surprised to find on GW's store still, so it must not be limited but I haven't heard 1 word about it as a game, to my knowledge people only bought it for the models. The Hobbit was a new game too technically, but really just a new edition of an old game ant it was also dead on arrival. It's... really not a great track record for 'games' from 'games workshop' when you cut out the specialist games that where released like 15 years ago.
Sqorgar wrote:
Spoiler:
Tom Kirby wrote: I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own (lots of) miniatures. I shouldn’t just mention it in passing because feeding this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these characteristics in people I don’t know, but I do know that out there in the world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need – it’s not new (we didn’t create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan Merrett* and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it. There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.
I have to ask, is this where the idea that GW sees itself as a toy company for children comes from? Because the full quote doesn't suggest that at all.
That is in fact *a* main quote, though there are plenty of other little offhand comments that seem to flow in the same direction. If that's not what you took from it then by all means, tell us what you think he means when he says his company sells more toy soldiers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ServiceGames wrote: EDIT: Since I haven't seen anything about this in any AoS discussion yet, I'm going to assume that none of you all have ever played D&D or were around when WotC made the jump from ruleset 3.5e to 4e. Pretty much the exact same response as WHFB to AoS is getting. That said, I actually like 4e over 3.5e unlike many. But, WotC did do a good job of sending out rules for D&D Next (now known as 5e) and got a lot of feedback from DMs. 5e is by far the best version of the ruleset I've played so far. They really did a great job on that. Will GW do something similar? I doubt it. Why? Well, there's no real "DM" in Warhammer. And gathering together all the opinions of all the people that have some just isn't feasible.
I wasn't around for the 3.5/4th fiasco but I have heard many a tale and was there for a little of the 5th ed playtesting and it's launch and I have to say I love it where 3.5/pathfinder just felt like a poorly constructed game to me and 4th had such a reputation that no one wanted to try it out with me.
MWHistorian wrote: I don't know, "Everything else we make and do is geared around that end," selling miniatures and "all we are doing, every day, is selling more toy soldiers"
Sounds like all they want to do is sell what they consider toys and everything, including the game, is just for that.
So, when people say, "GW makes AOS rules just to sell more and bigger miniatures and not to make a good game," seems to mirror GW's own point of view.
But that's taking it out of context. That's ignoring who he is talking about and the frame of reference his comments are made regarding. He's basically explaining why GW has been such a profitable and resilient company to a potential investor who doesn't understand the appeal ("sometimes hard for potential owners to understand the basics of the business"). He's being purposefully reductive in order to put it in terms that an outsider can understand. Why are they successful? Because they sell something that people want for a profit. Why toy soldiers? Because that's the closest reference point that an outsider can reference to kinda sorta get what Warhammer is all about. It wasn't a qualitative commentary on the game itself or its players.
And yeah, GW's business model is built on selling models, just like FFG's LCG model is built around buying $15 packs of 20 unique cards every month, with a $30 expansion every six months. Or how FFG's Imperial Assault is built around a core game + bi-yearly expansions + individual miniature packs coming out every 15 minutes. They both make and sell games, but their profit model is built on endlessly expandable games that fans continue to buy into. Nobody looks at Magic the Gathering and says "Wizards of the Coast doesn't make games. They make cards."
When people talk about GW being a toy company they are referencing their attitude. (I think).
When people read their rules and listen to what GW has to say about stuff etc it is clear they are models first junk later and it shows. Even if you don't enjoy their model aesthetic or design choices nobody can argue about their quality. the rules however leave a lot to desire. It's also come out apparently that they design cool models and then find a place for them to fit etc.
Everything from their attitude, their results and their constant talk of buying models etc makes it seem like they only sell the games as a front.
If you look at the GW page linked below, they clearly state they keep their games around because they are important (and they are despite their constant assertions that collectors are their market) because like us, they certainly understand that without the games they created 20+ years ago they would be dead by now.
investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/
Really their attitude and statements constantly like to emphasize their models with games as an after thought and this shows in their products.
A model company is something like Dragon Miniatures or Gundam or one of the many famous and large model companies out there.
I have to ask, is this where the idea that GW sees itself as a toy company for children comes from? .
No, there was another quote from Kirby (I believe from a financial report preamble where he directly stated that 'Games Workshop is in the business of selling toy soldiers to children'.
A lot of the rest of the perception of their attitude towards their business and their customers comes from the Chapterhouse case, where they claimed that the main focus of their customers is on buying their miniatures (and that wasn't even the most ridiculous thing they said in that court case), and a similar comment from the advertising for the 'new & improved' (ie - gutted) Games Day that suggested that the main focus of Games Day was buying stuff.
It's fairly clear at this point that GW don't understand why their customers actually buy their product. They seem to think that we're all just buying the miniatures to put on a shelf and look at them, and that the games are just an excuse to buy miniatures rather than something that anyone actually has any interest in playing.
I'm sure the studio still understands gamers... but the guys running the show patently do not.
insaniak wrote: It's fairly clear at this point that GW don't understand why their customers actually buy their product. They seem to think that we're all just buying the miniatures to put on a shelf and look at them, and that the games are just an excuse to buy miniatures rather than something that anyone actually has any interest in playing.
I'd just like to point out here that when GW say that they believe only 20% of their customers play the game they don't mean only 20% are tourney players, they don't mean only 20% are competitive players or play regularly. If you have put models on the table you are that 20%.
Now of course there is the possibility they are right, but they don't do market research so how would they know?
That is what they believe though.
No, there was another quote from Kirby (I believe from a financial report preamble where he directly stated that 'Games Workshop is in the business of selling toy soldiers to children'.
I can not, for the life of me, find this quote in context. By itself, the quote appears everywhere, but not the sentences before or after it. It appears to be from the preamble to the 2004 annual report, but I can't find that either. My Google-fu is failing me.
A lot of the rest of the perception of their attitude towards their business and their customers comes from the Chapterhouse case, where they claimed that the main focus of their customers is on buying their miniatures (and that wasn't even the most ridiculous thing they said in that court case), and a similar comment from the advertising for the 'new & improved' (ie - gutted) Games Day that suggested that the main focus of Games Day was buying stuff.
Did find some Chapterhouse stuff:
Laying aside whether Chapterhouse’s copying constitutes an in fringement, the trial evidence also confirms it makes and sells its copies for exactly the same purposes for which Games Workshop creates and produces miniatures: so that they can be used by fans of Warhammer 40,000 (either for collection or to play the game.)
It seems they mention the game in conjunction with purchasing the models, though I'm sure this isn't the quote you are talking about. I found some transcripts, but it will take a while to sift through. Though, in a trial about copyright protection for model designs, one would assume that GW would overplay the importance of the models in order to solidify their case. I'll keep looking, but I suspect that this will be another case of fans being paranoid and seeing what they always feared was the case, regardless of what it actually says.
It's fairly clear at this point that GW don't understand why their customers actually buy their product.
I think it's pretty clear that they do. They don't buy the models because of a stat line in a codex somewhere (though some do). They buy them because they look awesome as models, even if they will ultimately be used to play a game.
They seem to think that we're all just buying the miniatures to put on a shelf and look at them, and that the games are just an excuse to buy miniatures rather than something that anyone actually has any interest in playing.
That's a misreading of the passage I quoted before. He said that the game (and the lore) give context to the miniatures, not that it is an excuse to buy them. It's like saying that Star Wars toys are popular because of the movies. It is what the game contributes to the models, making them attractive to buyers, which is what he was talking about, because he was talking about explaining GW's success to potential investors.
I'm sure the studio still understands gamers... but the guys running the show patently do not.
I've seen people who don't understanding gaming (and worked for them, briefly), and believe me, GW isn't making the same stupid mistakes these other guys are. They are making completely different stupid mistakes.
Sqorgar wrote: That's a misreading of the passage I quoted before..
It's nothing whatsoever to do with the passage you quoted before.
The fact that you didn't find the references on google doesn't suddenly make them apply to something else entirely.
You can chalk it up to 'gamer paranoia' if you want, but the simple fact is that this is a company that has publicly stated their belief that we're all just here to buy toy soldiers. This is a company whose CEO publicly branded stores that don't provide gaming space as 'parasites' while simultaneously downsizing GW's own stores and in many cases removing the gaming tables. This is a company that is focusing on pumping out poorly-edited publication after poorly-edited publication with no effort made to go back and correct what are in some cases game-breaking errors. This is a company that ignored years of negative feedback over the direction of the rules of their flagship game only to summarily dump it in favour of a completely different game system with a vaguely similar setting that went even further in entirely the wrong direction.
So no, I don't think it's just 'paranoia' to think that they don't really know what they're doing, at this point.
I'd just like to point out here that when GW say that they believe only 20% of their customers play the game they don't mean only 20% are tourney players, they don't mean only 20% are competitive players or play regularly. If you have put models on the table you are that 20%.
Now of course there is the possibility they are right, but they don't do market research so how would they know?
That is what they believe though.
First, that's obviously an estimate, and I suspect it might even be a little optimistic.
Second, that's not (just) what market research is. That's just comparing the number of people who buy models at their stores with the number of people who play games at their stores. Market research is focus groups and studying competitors, looking for opportunities for expansion, tabulating opinions from social media - it's a whole suite of investigative research into not only the people who buy their product, but also the people who buy the competitor's product, and even people who might buy their product maybe. In a niche industry with very few competitors, none of which are as large and dominant of yourself, the amount of useful information you can actually gain from studying the market (which you created) or your competitors (which you dwarf) is relatively small. There is literally no data about how to grow your corporation bigger because there's no examples to follow that aren't you.
GW absolutely looks at what people are saying about their games and detailing how the buy and play it, but they do it from their own GW stores (which, I believe, requires the shop runner to answer frequent questionnaires about customers rather than watching them directly) rather than hiring a research firm to send out surveys, stalk facebook pages, or peer through competitor financials. GW doesn't do market research in the more classical business term way than the idea that they just completely ignore their own customers. I mean, come on. Do you really think they just release models and don't once watch to see how they sell?
Sqorgar wrote: That's a misreading of the passage I quoted before..
It's nothing whatsoever to do with the passage you quoted before.
The fact that you didn't find the references on google doesn't suddenly make them apply to something else entirely.
If you'd like to offer the full quotes, in context, I'd love to read them. I have a sneaky suspicion that you've never seen the full quotes, or remember them incorrectly, as they are not nearly as readily available as borderline hysterical commentary on partial sentence fragments devoid of context.
Sqorgar wrote: If you'd like to offer the full quotes, in context, I'd love to read them. I have a sneaky suspicion that you've never seen the full quotes, or remember them incorrectly, as they are not nearly as readily available as borderline hysterical commentary on partial sentence fragments devoid of context.
You're welcome to believe what you want, of course. This isn't a contest that needs to be won. It's a statement of opinion, based on experience. I have no interest in doing your homework for you.
I'd just like to point out here that when GW say that they believe only 20% of their customers play the game they don't mean only 20% are tourney players, they don't mean only 20% are competitive players or play regularly. If you have put models on the table you are that 20%.
Now of course there is the possibility they are right, but they don't do market research so how would they know?
That is what they believe though.
First, that's obviously an estimate, and I suspect it might even be a little optimistic.
It is a figure GW repeat without ever providing any evidence to back up and it flies in the face of every bit of anecdotal evidence we have. Just go look at any of the polls that occasionally pop up here on Dakka asking if people would continue buying if the game no longer existed. Ask around your local store how many people buy and don't play. If GW honestly believe this (which is an assumption one must make since they are saying they believe it) then they either do have market research supporting that statement (and since they have stated they don't do market research one can assume they are again telling the truth and thus don't) or they are simply talking about a perceived customer base without actually knowing if that is how their customers use their product. And that is dangerous, especially for a company that has been increasing it's release schedule but still has falling sales volume. It shows a serious disconnect between them and their customers that then explains that falling sales volume.
Sqorgar wrote: Second, that's not (just) what market research is. That's just comparing the number of people who buy models at their stores with the number of people who play games at their stores. Market research is focus groups and studying competitors, looking for opportunities for expansion, tabulating opinions from social media - it's a whole suite of investigative research into not only the people who buy their product, but also the people who buy the competitor's product, and even people who might buy their product maybe. In a niche industry with very few competitors, none of which are as large and dominant of yourself, the amount of useful information you can actually gain from studying the market (which you created) or your competitors (which you dwarf) is relatively small. There is literally no data about how to grow your corporation bigger because there's no examples to follow that aren't you.
GW have more competitors now than ever before. The market is bigger now than ever before and now is EXACTLY the time they need to be doing that market research. I haven't done any economics or business courses but I would bet you real money that anyone who has would tell you that right now is the worst possible time for GW to dismiss market research. The industry is growing, their competitors are growing, and GW is shrinking and desperately cutting costs left right and center. The lukewarm response of AoS is proof of that. If they asked their customers what they want maybe we wouldn't be arguing about it 3 months later, maybe it would have been a great game we could all enjoy. Or, maybe, they would still piss off their old WHFB fans but they would have brought in more new AoS fans to replace them (something that the 'how is AoS doing in your area' thread, along with plenty of other anecdotal suggests hasn't happened).
Sqorgar wrote: GW absolutely looks at what people are saying about their games and detailing how the buy and play it, but they do it from their own GW stores (which, I believe, requires the shop runner to answer frequent questionnaires about customers rather than watching them directly) rather than hiring a research firm to send out surveys, stalk facebook pages, or peer through competitor financials. GW doesn't do market research in the more classical business term way than the idea that they just completely ignore their own customers. I mean, come on. Do you really think they just release models and don't once watch to see how they sell?
No, I think they release models and do watch to see how they sell, but at no point before releasing them do they stop and ask 'is this what the customer wants' and then they are surprised when things don't sell. And I have never heard of GW staff having to fill out surveys like that, where are you getting that information? I have only ever seen them ask for postal codes to gauge where they should place a new store in the area.
I also find it rather laughable that they would use their one man store 'managers' as any kind of indication as to how things are going since those people aren't even allowed to order their own stock, they simple get sent product by a higher up. It would also still be an almost useless form of market research, as they are only asking questions of people who are entering their stores. People who have given up on GW but would return are not being heard, nor are people who have hesitated to start a GW game but could be convinced. They aren't asking people who play competitor's games why they aren't playing GW games, and again if you are shrinking in a growing industry you need to do that.
jonolikespie wrote: The lukewarm response of AoS is proof of that. If they asked their customers what they want maybe we wouldn't be arguing about it 3 months later, maybe it would have been a great game we could all enjoy.
This bit. Thank you so very much for writing it. I was seriously beginning to doubt my sanity - this whole gak storm of anti and pro AoS would never have happened to begin with if GW had bothered reaching out and asking their customer base what was going on. Yet AoS discussions worldwide end in pro and anti sides will always focus each other down while ignoring that - again - this gak is fallout from GW's arrogant, narrow minded decision.
I have at some point owned every fantasy army except dark elves and Bretonian. I have owned every 40k army at some point. I have played for 20 years, easily painted up well over 5000 miniatures, and have sculpted everything from giant squgoths to greater chaos dragons. I own 15,000 points of painted Orks, and have scratch built everything from battlewagons to a great gargant and a blasta-bomma. I have held painting lessons, sculpting lessons, taught people to play, and ran a game store for a few years. I have played every edition of 40k, and started fantasy in 4th edition. I have played every specialist game, and just about every white dwarf game from the original BF gothic to the dwarf bar brawl to movie marines.
I have ran and organized official GW tournaments including regional 'Ard Boyz, have ran a 48 hour Apocolypse game that was played in shifts, built close to 20 terrain sets, and once played a 13,000 point fantasy battle game with my skaven vs. high elves, all fully painted. (my Skaven alone is over 800 painted models.)
As a designer, do you ever take into account what your customers might want? Do you ever check and see if different wants can be fulfilled at the same time?
Very good question.
The initial concept of a game can come from many places. It might be that someone has thought 'hey, there are no decent 6mm sci-fi games around and Epic left a hole in the market - we can fill that!' It might just be someone saying 'I had the most awesome idea for a game last night', though I could understand that happens less the larger a company gets.
The important thing is that a designer is fired up and enthused with the idea (you can tend to spot the games where that does not happen). At that point, he has a 'vision' of what the game is going to be like, heavily influenced by what he wants to play. The first drafts get written, the designer plays a few games and likes what he sees after making adjustments - and then the playtesters kick in
I'll give you two examples
This happened with Dredd, to begin with. The first draft looked a lot like 1st ed. 40k, with a heavy RPG element and very loose structures on how people were supposed to play, but with lots of ideas of cool things to try. The playtesters took one look at it and said it could not possibly work without a core points system and campaign play based around gangs. It was already 80% of the way there, so the changes were made and you see the game as it is today.
However, and this is a tough one... playtesters are not always right They do represent a key indication of the final audience but, as a designer, sometimes you develop a belief that what the playtesters are telling you is not correct. There is nothing scientific about this aspect, which is where games design becomes more of an art, but you become convinced that the game will be better if you go in the other direction.
A good example here is the new edition of Victory at Sea. Our playtesters on this game are absolutely first class and each one has more knowledge of WWII naval combat in their little finger than I do in my entire head. However, I have to balance their comments against the fact that they are (very long term) naval gamers and not designers.
So, every time they send in a report saying 'very good, but radar doesn't quite work like that, we need to put exceptions in here, here and here...' I may have to kick back and decide that 99% of players really won't care about that level of detail and that it needs to be abstracted out. This, incidentally, is a very, very common failing among playtesters, especially for historical games and, funnily enough, RPGs. They want to create simulations, not games. You could say this is where a major part of the games designing skill comes in, deciding what elements are necessary to make a good game and which are unnecessary fluff that are just going to get in the way.
To properly answer your question though... Yes, you listen to customers and try to shape a game around their expectations - most of the time. However, every now and again you will want to push the boat out further and do something different, and here we are back to the artistic aspect. Sometimes it will work. Sometimes it will fall flat ion its face. And that is how it should be. This is the process by which we get nice things (in the end).
To pull an example already mentioned in this thread, Starship Troopers had a reaction mechanic that allowed models to do things in the opposing player's turn - this would never have come up in any meaningful way in any kind of research. No one was asking for it. It came about because I was tired of my Marines just sitting around doing nothing as a Wave Serpent bombed round the corner, disgorged a load of Banshees, who proceeded to cop them up. I wanted to see if there was a way a type of 'AI' (for want of a better term) could be placed within models. No one asked for it, but it became one of the defining elements of the game.
Sometimes it works.
At the end of the day, most designers are just trying to create what they think is the best a game can possibly be with the tools they have available.
pox wrote: D&D 3.5 and pathfinder are great because they have all the full miniature rules,
Well, when 3.0 came out, there was a large rift among players who thought it was too much like a miniatures game...
pox wrote: The Generals Compendium was a great example of this, it both had "forge the narrative" articles for castles, boats, unusual terrain and campaign rules, but it also had rules in it for ultra competitive play. (The grudgematch rules.)
That was an interesting book. However, I might guess that the majority of people who picked it up (which would be a minority of Warhammer players in the first place) simply read it, thought 'cool ideas' and then went right back to Pitched Battles...
pox wrote: but you say you're friends with a lot of them, so maybe you can shed some light on this.
I am not friends with a lot of them - I have worked with them in the past, I know a clutch of the 'old guard' now working for other companies, and I still know one or two in the design studio. We are not besties or anything
You're welcome to believe what you want, of course. This isn't a contest that needs to be won. It's a statement of opinion, based on experience. I have no interest in doing your homework for you.
It's not a statement of opinion! You are stating that GW said certain things. In quotes, even. That's a statement of fact. Or it would be if anyone could double check it. On an internet filled with pages dedicated to documented every misstep GW makes, it is amazing that these quotes are not easily found. And the fact that you are willing to argue about it, but not actually back up your comments makes me think you are just repeating things you heard second hand and don't actually know where these quotes come from or the context they were supposedly used in.
And the reason you don't bother looking it up is because it doesn't actually matter to you whether these statements are true or not.
I tried looking it up in the court documents, but couldn't find it either. There's almost certainly something matching it somewhere, but I have no idea where in the testimony it could be found. The court proceedings are spread over a lot of different documents.
The "but nobody was asking for a points system!" is interesting. It's great to read MongooseMatt's perspective. Here is mine: as a designer, you should be designing for whoever your hypothetical player is (even if it's just you), but that doesn't mean you rely on your players for design solutions. You rely on them to point out problems, shortcomings. Their solutions are often not going to be very useful, partly because they don't have your design expertise, but also because you're working towards a lot of design goals that aren't completely known to them.
In the case of points, people have long complained about army composition systems from all sorts of angles. There is a problem there, somewhere! The trick is figuring out what it is and what the best solution is for your game. Games Workshop made one particular decision here.
It is a figure GW repeat without ever providing any evidence to back up and it flies in the face of every bit of anecdotal evidence we have.
The reason anecdotal evidence is worthless is because it is extremely biased and impossible to quantify. I mean, if there was a person who bought the models but didn't play the game, how would you know? You wouldn't be playing against them at the store. You wouldn't be talking with them on Dakka. These guys are like dark matter to you. They exist nowhere you exist.
Ask around your local store how many people buy and don't play.
I buy and don't play. About 15 years ago, I picked up a 40k starter (the one with Dark Eldar) to assemble and try painting, but never read the rule book or played a game. My first painted mini was a space marine though. I've got boxes full of DnD and Star Wars miniatures that far outstrip the number of games I've played. I guess the same could be said for Dust Tactics and Monsterpocalypse, despite my actually enjoying those as games. I've got a box of Hellboy HeroClix figures, but never played a game of HeroClix. Even now, I have plans for getting Dark Vengeance, Dreadfleet, and the upcoming HH box, with exactly zero intention of playing any of those games. I've got a box of about a bajillion Bones miniatures from the first Reaper kickstarter that I just use to test out paint schemes. Hell, when I first bought AoS, it was for the models and only a half interest in actually playing it.
I do actively play WMH and AoS though, but that's a relatively recent thing for me.
And that is dangerous, especially for a company that has been increasing it's release schedule but still has falling sales volume. It shows a serious disconnect between them and their customers that then explains that falling sales volume.
I suspect that the decreasing sales volume has more to do with a global recession (sales for everything have been dropping until recently) and competition from not only other, increasingly popular miniature games (WMH, Inf, Mantic) but also from board games which now increasingly feature miniatures (Descent, Imperial Assault, Super Dungeon Explore, Kingdom Death, Cool Mini or Not, every other Kickstarter) - all thanks to CAD design and 3D printers. Basically, GW has more competition for toy soldiers now than it ever did. It's like how portable game sales went down when the iPhone came out. It isn't because GW is clueless towards their audience. If anything, I think they know their audience too well.
GW have more competitors now than ever before. The market is bigger now than ever before and now is EXACTLY the time they need to be doing that market research. I haven't done any economics or business courses but I would bet you real money that anyone who has would tell you that right now is the worst possible time for GW to dismiss market research. The industry is growing, their competitors are growing, and GW is shrinking and desperately cutting costs left right and center.
They absolutely have more competitors now, but I suspect the reason they are shrinking is more because they inflated past their market share in the first place. In times of prosperity, it is easy increase production to meet the new demand, but once that demand shrinks back to its equilibrium point, it is very difficult for vertically integrated companies to dial it back as well. My guess is that GW had a really good run right before the housing market burst and sent the global economy into decline, made a bunch of necessarily but unpopular decisions during the recession to stay afloat, and now that things are getting better, is looking for ways they can expand their audience to get back to their pre-recession popularity. I have no evidence for any of this, but I don't think GW would've released AoS two years ago.
As for market research, I can't say whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing. I suspect that it would cost a lot more than it would benefit them. It's one of those things. It's not worth painting your house when the lawn hasn't been mowed in three years. There's a lot of obvious things they can fix now that they don't need to pay anyone to tell them about. Maybe after they've mowed the lawn, they can hire someone to tell them what color to paint the house. Even then, GW is in such a specific industry that I'm not sure anyone could give them useful advice that didn't involve "be in a different industry".
The lukewarm response of AoS is proof of that. If they asked their customers what they want maybe we wouldn't be arguing about it 3 months later, maybe it would have been a great game we could all enjoy.
But AoS wasn't created for their current customers. And as much as I enjoy the game, I do admit that the response has been lukewarm. I think that will change as more releases come out though and the sting of WHFB softens.
And I have never heard of GW staff having to fill out surveys like that, where are you getting that information?
I think it was a thread on Warseer about when store owners were expected to paint the HH set before release. A poster mentioned that the staff used to get free models and other bonuses for painting on their free time and that they also had surveys they had to fill out. I believe it was mentioned that they may not do that anymore, but he wasn't sure.
I also find it rather laughable that they would use their one man store 'managers' as any kind of indication as to how things are going since those people aren't even allowed to order their own stock, they simple get sent product by a higher up.
That's the case for a lot of stores. I used to be friends with the manager of a Babbages and he would tell me that corporate would just send them stuff. And I know some flagship stores don't get to control their inventory directly either. It's probably just the difference between a FLGS and a corporately owned store.
People need to stop getting their knickers in a twist regarding GWs lack of market research.
A premium product company doesn't need to do it*.
Apple don't ask you what you want in their next product, do they?
Some companies retroactively listen to the consumer (Xbox One, Corvus Belli, Coke etc) but otherwise they're not interested in what a few dozen people have to say on the internet.
*that's how they see themselves, doesn't matter what anyone else thinks
The best proof of Games Workshop being an arogant, snide and backwards company that loathes its consumers and doesn't give a crap about gaming is the release of Age of Sigmar
Sqorgar wrote: The reason anecdotal evidence is worthless is because it is extremely biased and impossible to quantify. I mean, if there was a person who bought the models but didn't play the game, how would you know? You wouldn't be playing against them at the store. You wouldn't be talking with them on Dakka. These guys are like dark matter to you. They exist nowhere you exist.
But as I said, GW seem to have NO evidence one way or the other. Anecdotal is better than nothing.
Do you think that you and people like you make up a significant percentage of GW's customer base? Such as, oh i don't know, 80%?
Sqorgar wrote: I suspect that the decreasing sales volume has more to do with a global recession (sales for everything have been dropping until recently) and competition from not only other, increasingly popular miniature games (WMH, Inf, Mantic) but also from board games which now increasingly feature miniatures (Descent, Imperial Assault, Super Dungeon Explore, Kingdom Death, Cool Mini or Not, every other Kickstarter) - all thanks to CAD design and 3D printers. Basically, GW has more competition for toy soldiers now than it ever did. It's like how portable game sales went down when the iPhone came out. It isn't because GW is clueless towards their audience. If anything, I think they know their audience too well.
Regardless decreasing sales are decreasing sales and any smart company would be using market research to try and address that.
Sqorgar wrote: They absolutely have more competitors now, but I suspect the reason they are shrinking is more because they inflated past their market share in the first place. In times of prosperity, it is easy increase production to meet the new demand, but once that demand shrinks back to its equilibrium point, it is very difficult for vertically integrated companies to dial it back as well. My guess is that GW had a really good run right before the housing market burst and sent the global economy into decline, made a bunch of necessarily but unpopular decisions during the recession to stay afloat, and now that things are getting better, is looking for ways they can expand their audience to get back to their pre-recession popularity. I have no evidence for any of this, but I don't think GW would've released AoS two years ago.
Most of the time luxury goods are safe from recessions, in fact I am pretty sure Kirby himself has told investors exactly that. And now that we are through it GW still seem to be struggling to level out. They are still cutting costs left and right. I'd also like to point out that in Australia at least the falling sales started years before the GFC.
Sqorgar wrote: As for market research, I can't say whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing. I suspect that it would cost a lot more than it would benefit them. It's one of those things. It's not worth painting your house when the lawn hasn't been mowed in three years. There's a lot of obvious things they can fix now that they don't need to pay anyone to tell them about. Maybe after they've mowed the lawn, they can hire someone to tell them what color to paint the house. Even then, GW is in such a specific industry that I'm not sure anyone could give them useful advice that didn't involve "be in a different industry".
How about 'your customers consider the game to be an important aspect of the hobby'?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/666183.page just sayin'
(And I know that Dakka probably doesn't represent the average GW customer, but then without market research you really can't prove that it doesn't either.)
Sqorgar wrote: But AoS wasn't created for their current customers.
No, it seems to be created for a hypothetical new customer base made up of people such of yourself, but without anyone stopping to ask the question will this new customer base be bigger than the following WHFB still had?
Sqorgar wrote: I think it was a thread on Warseer about when store owners were expected to paint the HH set before release. A poster mentioned that the staff used to get free models and other bonuses for painting on their free time and that they also had surveys they had to fill out. I believe it was mentioned that they may not do that anymore, but he wasn't sure.
Ah. Sadly GW used to do a lot of great things. They stopped a lot of those kinds of things years ago though.
monders wrote: People need to stop getting their knickers in a twist regarding GWs lack of market research.
A premium product company doesn't need to do it*.
Apple don't ask you what you want in their next product, do they?
Some companies retroactively listen to the consumer (Xbox One, Corvus Belli, Coke etc) but otherwise they're not interested in what a few dozen people have to say on the internet.
*that's how they see themselves, doesn't matter what anyone else thinks
If GW ever thinks their brand is on par with Microsoft, Apple, Coke... they are SERIOUSLY deluded. Farther than I ever imagined.
monders wrote: People need to stop getting their knickers in a twist regarding GWs lack of market research.
A premium product company doesn't need to do it*.
Apple don't ask you what you want in their next product, do they?
Some companies retroactively listen to the consumer (Xbox One, Corvus Belli, Coke etc) but otherwise they're not interested in what a few dozen people have to say on the internet.
*that's how they see themselves, doesn't matter what anyone else thinks
If GW ever thinks their brand is on par with Microsoft, Apple, Coke... they are SERIOUSLY deluded. Farther than I ever imagined.
I'm pretty sure Kirby has compared himself to Steve Jobs on more than one occasion.
jonolikespie wrote: No, it seems to be created for a hypothetical new customer base made up of people such of yourself, but without anyone stopping to ask the question will this new customer base be bigger than the following WHFB still had
One word - "Otiose".
GW's attitude is dismissive and arrogant of its customer base and competition.
It's even more insulting to the customer base, in that they both take them for granted and rule them as discardable.
Do you think that you and people like you make up a significant percentage of GW's customer base? Such as, oh i don't know, 80%?
Do you know, to play Devil's Advocate... it might be.
It is a truism of RPGs that (maybe 80%) of books get bought, read... and then sit on a shelf. Having been involved in sales of second hand GW models... you know... that 80% might be a thing.
No solid figures to bring to the table on this but a very large proportion of models getting bought and then never played with...
Do you think that you and people like you make up a significant percentage of GW's customer base? Such as, oh i don't know, 80%?
Do you know, to play Devil's Advocate... it might be.
It is a truism of RPGs that (maybe 80%) of books get bought, read... and then sit on a shelf. Having been involved in sales of second hand GW models... you know... that 80% might be a thing.
No solid figures to bring to the table on this but a very large proportion of models getting bought and then never played with...
Might just be possible.
You don't sound very convinced, though. Or is it just me?
1. I buy a box of models because I really want them, both for the rules and their look.
2. Lets say that I can spend 1 hour each day on painting and assembling it.
3. I want it to look good enough so I'm not doing a sloppy job on that 13 quid meganob.
4. After 30 days diligently working on the model I have completed it and have at last scheduled my monthly 2 hour game.
Am I gamer enough? Am I a modeller/collector? In which category do I belong provided that I game on a certain, regular basis, but spend a negligible amount on the actual game. The answer probably depends on what you consider the minimum gaming time one spends on gaming. I have pals that would say that my one monthly game is not enough for me to be a gamer (regular). It really depends on the context and personal understanding of what a "gamer" is.
As an author, I have two rules.
#1. If the audience hates it and thinks it sucks. Don't do it.
#2. If the audience loves it and thinks it rocks. Do it.
You can talk about experimentation and art, but the reality of it is that I'm in a business and need to make money. GW is the same way. They can experiment and make art all they want, (the idea that artists can just do whatever they want is false) but in the end, they have to make money and right now sales are shrinking. The fact that they're not even trying to figure out why is insane. Making games regardless of what the customers want is a good way to remain clueless. If they have enough capitol to invest in an experiment, sure, but your core games (or game in GW's case) better be rock solid.
Do you think that you and people like you make up a significant percentage of GW's customer base? Such as, oh i don't know, 80%?
I'm saying you have no way of knowing. You didn't know I existed until I join Dakka - after I started getting serious about Age of Sigmar. Who knows how many other people are out there, buying miniatures and not interacting with the community at large? And anecdotal evidence is not better than anything, as it can lead you to jump to conclusions based on an incomplete picture drawn by your own confirmation bias. It is better to assume nothing than rely on faulty observations.
Regardless decreasing sales are decreasing sales and any smart company would be using market research to try and address that.
Honestly, I'm not a business major, so I don't feel comfortable saying what a smart company would or wouldn't do. Needless to say, not every business does market research or relies on it to the extent you seem to want GW to.
Most of the time luxury goods are safe from recessions, in fact I am pretty sure Kirby himself has told investors exactly that.
I'm pretty sure that luxury goods merely survive through recessions, not profit from them. As in, their sales will drop (like everybody else's), but the market will not disappear completely.
How about 'your customers consider the game to be an important aspect of the hobby'?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/666183.page just sayin'
(And I know that Dakka probably doesn't represent the average GW customer, but then without market research you really can't prove that it doesn't either.)
You are like, super hung up on this market research thing, aren't you? Does it upset you that GW doesn't ask you personally how they should run their company?
No, it seems to be created for a hypothetical new customer base made up of people such of yourself, but without anyone stopping to ask the question will this new customer base be bigger than the following WHFB still had?
What makes you think it wouldn't be? From what I understand, the WHFB fans weren't that large a group. Even at its height, it was smaller than 40k was. So you can make the very easy argument that 40k fans could support fantasy better than WHFB fans ever could. So if they were going to reboot Warhammer in an effort to make it more popular, should they keep it like it was (WHFB fans barely keeping it profitable, and leaving faster than they could be replaced by new players) or make it more like 40k (which would cannibalize their own playerbase)? Or perhaps they should take a third option altogether?
The parallels between TSR and GW are enormous, even down to the overly zealous copywrite protection and the "too big to fail" mentality.
Except TSR started in 1973 and Games Workshop started in 1975, and one of those is still around today. Hint: not TSR.
The copyright thing is a matter of scale. It happens to every corporation that reaches a specific size, and nobody uses Disney or Apple's litigiousness as proof that they are teetering on the brink of destruction. Eventually a company has reached a saturation point with its audience and they spend more time trying to keep their audience than gain a new one. If anything, Age of Sigmar is proof that they are looking for new customers rather than fighting the losing fight to keep their old ones. Age of Sigmar is a GOOD thing. It is their iMac, their Wii. It's their blue ocean strategy to increase the size of the audience, from which ALL miniature games will ultimately benefit. It may be a gamble that doesn't pay off, but only time will tell there.
Seriously, you guys are so determined to prove that Games Workshop is some uncaring monster of a corporation that cares only about profit and would spit in the face of fans if given the chance that you ignore all the successes and good things GW has done over the past four decades. There are a lot of things that GW does that I don't like, but there is a more reasonable middle ground to be had where you can accept that they are capable of great things as well as horrible things, and treat each instance objectively rather than sitting there, mouth agape, acting like GW just personally insulted you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plumbumbarum wrote: The best proof of Games Workshop being an arogant, snide and backwards company that loathes its consumers and doesn't give a crap about gaming is the release of Age of Sigmar
Show me on the doll where Games Workshop touched you...
MWHistorian wrote: As an author, I have two rules.
#1. If the audience hates it and thinks it sucks. Don't do it.
#2. If the audience loves it and thinks it rocks. Do it.
I believe it was PT Barnum who said you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
1. I buy a box of models because I really want them, both for the rules and their look.
2. Lets say that I can spend 1 hour each day on painting and assembling it.
3. I want it to look good enough so I'm not doing a sloppy job on that 13 quid meganob.
4. After 30 days diligently working on the model I have completed it and have at last scheduled my monthly 2 hour game.
Am I gamer enough? Am I a modeller/collector? In which category do I belong provided that I game on a certain, regular basis, but spend a negligible amount on the actual game. The answer probably depends on what you consider the minimum gaming time one spends on gaming. I have pals that would say that my one monthly game is not enough for me to be a gamer (regular). It really depends on the context and personal understanding of what a "gamer" is.
From what I understand of GW's language in their communications you ar a gamer. They imply that 80% of their customer base doesn't play at all.
1. I buy a box of models because I really want them, both for the rules and their look.
2. Lets say that I can spend 1 hour each day on painting and assembling it.
3. I want it to look good enough so I'm not doing a sloppy job on that 13 quid meganob.
4. After 30 days diligently working on the model I have completed it and have at last scheduled my monthly 2 hour game.
Am I gamer enough? Am I a modeller/collector? In which category do I belong provided that I game on a certain, regular basis, but spend a negligible amount on the actual game. The answer probably depends on what you consider the minimum gaming time one spends on gaming. I have pals that would say that my one monthly game is not enough for me to be a gamer (regular). It really depends on the context and personal understanding of what a "gamer" is.
From what I understand of GW's language in their communications you ar a gamer. They imply that 80% of their customer base doesn't play at all.
1. I buy a box of models because I really want them, both for the rules and their look.
2. Lets say that I can spend 1 hour each day on painting and assembling it.
3. I want it to look good enough so I'm not doing a sloppy job on that 13 quid meganob.
4. After 30 days diligently working on the model I have completed it and have at last scheduled my monthly 2 hour game.
Am I gamer enough? Am I a modeller/collector? In which category do I belong provided that I game on a certain, regular basis, but spend a negligible amount on the actual game. The answer probably depends on what you consider the minimum gaming time one spends on gaming. I have pals that would say that my one monthly game is not enough for me to be a gamer (regular). It really depends on the context and personal understanding of what a "gamer" is.
From what I understand of GW's language in their communications you ar a gamer. They imply that 80% of their customer base doesn't play at all.
Pro tip. If you play the game, you're a gamer.
Chances are you're an WAAC gamer, at that!
It doesn't matter if you play a game once a year. Those models aren't meant to be on the tabletop, damn it!
Plumbumbarum wrote: The best proof of Games Workshop being an arogant, snide and backwards company that loathes its consumers and doesn't give a crap about gaming is the release of Age of Sigmar
Show me on the doll where Games Workshop touched you...
And what's the purpose of that comment of yours again? To be rude and childish?
Sqorgar wrote: What makes you think it wouldn't be? From what I understand, the WHFB fans weren't that large a group. Even at its height, it was smaller than 40k was
You do understand that 40kexists because WHFB was growing so well that GW decided to capitalize and reach out to the Sci-Fi crowd... but yeah... sure.
MWHistorian wrote: As an author, I have two rules.
#1. If the audience hates it and thinks it sucks. Don't do it.
#2. If the audience loves it and thinks it rocks. Do it.
I believe it was PT Barnum who said you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
There is some irony to this mis-quote, and I think it applies even more to GW.
The quote is "you can FOOL some of the people all of the time; you can FOOL all of the people some of the time; but you can never FOOL all of the people all of the time."
Sqorgar wrote: Seriously, you guys are so determined to prove that Games Workshop is some uncaring monster of a corporation that cares only about profit and would spit in the face of fans if given the chance that you ignore all the successes and good things GW has done over the past four decades. There are a lot of things that GW does that I don't like, but there is a more reasonable middle ground to be had where you can accept that they are capable of great things as well as horrible things, and treat each instance objectively rather than sitting there, mouth agape, acting like GW just personally insulted you.
Show me on the doll where the bad people who don't share your opinion touched you...
Well, I can understand if fantasy isn't as popular as SF nowadays. It may be very possible. It's obvious with the "hype" on Tau and the coming Horus Heresy box is quite high in comparison with news for AoS (on the other hand, I must say that the lizardmen with just repackaged boxes is quite...well, no new miniature, after all. Just a new Battletome. Not the same, thus).
About the 80% ratio in GW customers...actually, it makes a lot of sense. You can see their products are more and more about the "collector" thing. And they sell. So, there are people willing to buy these just for the sake of collection alone.
How many people did buy a box just for the pleasure of having it? I think it's not that low in reality.
So, yeah...AoS is made so that you can have fun with your collection.
Sarouan wrote: Well, I can understand if fantasy isn't as popular as SF nowadays. It may be very possible. It's obvious with the "hype" on Tau and the coming Horus Heresy box is quite high in comparison with news for AoS (on the other hand, I must say that the lizardmen with just repackaged boxes is quite...well, no new miniature, after all. Just a new Battletome. Not the same, thus).
About the 80% ratio in GW customers...actually, it makes a lot of sense. You can see their products are more and more about the "collector" thing. And they sell. So, there are people willing to buy these just for the sake of collection alone.
How many people did buy a box just for the pleasure of having it? I think it's not that low in reality.
So, yeah...AoS is made so that you can have fun with your collection.
Let me just make sure I understand what you're saying - You're saying you believe that 80% of the GW customers have never played/will never play a GW game?
There is some irony to this mis-quote, and I think it applies even more to GW.
The quote is "you can FOOL some of the people all of the time; you can FOOL all of the people some of the time; but you can never FOOL all of the people all of the time."
It also wasn't PT Barnum who said it. The actual original quote, by 15th century poet John Lydgate, used "please" instead of "fool", with the latter being misattributed to Abraham Lincoln about 50 years after his death. That was then later misattributed to PT Barnum. PT Barnum also didn't say "There's a sucker born every minute" - but that doesn't make it any less true.
So, yeah...AoS is made so that you can have fun with your collection.
It use to be that you had a collection to have fun. That's how I operated. I had fun...I added to my collection...I had more fun. GW is now operating under some assumption that people will build a collection just for the sake of building a collection.
Other than stamps, has there ever been a hobby based on such a premise?
So, yeah...AoS is made so that you can have fun with your collection.
It use to be that you had a collection to have fun. That's how I operated. I had fun...I added to my collection...I had more fun. GW is now operating under some assumption that people will build a collection just for the sake of building a collection.
Other than stamps, has there ever been a hobby based on such a premise?
There is some irony to this mis-quote, and I think it applies even more to GW.
The quote is "you can FOOL some of the people all of the time; you can FOOL all of the people some of the time; but you can never FOOL all of the people all of the time."
It also wasn't PT Barnum who said it. The actual original quote, by 15th century poet John Lydgate, used "please" instead of "fool", with the latter being misattributed to Abraham Lincoln about 50 years after his death. That was then later misattributed to PT Barnum. PT Barnum also didn't say "There's a sucker born every minute" - but that doesn't make it any less true.
Let me level with you, and kinda cool the room. I love citadel miniatures. I always have, and for a lot of reasons I stopped playing other games. The main reason was due to having too many armies from companies that went belly up. Anyone want to play Chronopia or VOR? In addition to that, every specialist game has been canceled. Lastly, the only shop I like going to is a GW shop.
So age of sigmar drops, and right off the bat my army is toast. What I mean is I played a clan morrs list, all warriors and slaves. no matter how you slice it, it's not a viable list for AoS. I do play, I bring either a fast moving eshin force, a skryre gunline, or a melee mix of rat ogres, stormvermin, and plague monks. (this gives me three "tiers" of armies.) so the game can be played, and I can bring hard lists or soft lists, but the bulk of my models are useless. (adding insult to injury all my units are on regimental bases and they don't make 20mm round bases.)
Second, it was not all that well received. I have to call ahead to the shop to see if anyone is playing. I only have time about once a month, so aside from when it dropped and I was not working, I usually just play 40k.
Third, the game is OK but I find that I have to always change stuff. even if I'm fine RAW my opponents usually aren't and want to try various scenarios/comps/builds. This means every encounter is vastly different, and sometimes I don't have whats needed. Again, I bring 2000 points of 40K and adjust to 1250, 1500, 500, etc.
Lastly, and this is the most important, AoS would need to outsell fantasy by a large margin or they will drop the game. I base this off the fact that I can't buy any specialist game. Originally this was due to shelf space but with so much direct only its obvious they don't want to support a game that does not sell well. They want a game that sells as much as 40K. I don't think they will keep re-launching fantasy, I think their thought will just be that a fantasy setting is not what the players want. I firmly believe that fantasy will go away within two years. Especially with the run-at-the-store that is about to happen with Horus Heresy.
so That's where I'm at. Everything else is just talking back and forth, but it is my experience that AoS will not be supported, and GW moves to slow to fix the problem even if they were aware of the issues.
And we haven't even touched upon the subject of 40k, and the lines that they're are going to drastically alter that too.
All of this is just my personal thoughts and experiences, and I really go out of my way to not assume what anyone else is thinking or to assume that their point of view is wrong because it's different.
Sqorgar wrote: I'm saying you have no way of knowing. You didn't know I existed until I join Dakka - after I started getting serious about Age of Sigmar. Who knows how many other people are out there, buying miniatures and not interacting with the community at large? And anecdotal evidence is not better than anything, as it can lead you to jump to conclusions based on an incomplete picture drawn by your own confirmation bias. It is better to assume nothing than rely on faulty observations.
And taking shots in the dark clearly isn't working for GW.
Seriously, consider for a moment what AoS is. It is the brand spankin' new core product line from what is still the industry leader in a time where the industry seems to have never been bigger. It is the replacement and continuation of a game with 30 years of history behind it. It should by all rights be the biggest thing in gaming right now, or perhaps the second biggest behind 40k.
And yet, as we established, lukewarm reception at best. Doesn't that say something about the company producing it and how well they know their market?
Sqorgar wrote: Honestly, I'm not a business major, so I don't feel comfortable saying what a smart company would or wouldn't do. Needless to say, not every business does market research or relies on it to the extent you seem to want GW to.
Fun fact, I legitimately tried to look for a list of companies that don't do market research and the whole first page of google was just links telling me that market research is good. Apple doesn't though, we know that much. And, as much as I think their products are overpirced for what they are, they have apparently been closing the gap on Samsung in the mobile market, now taking up a whopping 13.6% market share to Smasung's 24.4% (both moved about 1 percent in opposite directions on last year, I'm also not entirely sure how reliable 247wallst.com is so feel free to call me on it if those numbers are wrong).
I'm pretty sure that luxury goods merely survive through recessions, not profit from them. As in, their sales will drop (like everybody else's), but the market will not disappear completely.
I was going to try to find the exact quote when Kirby said the global recession didn't effect them but it is 2am here so I gave up. I will point out that every other company in the market is operating in the exact same economic circumstances as GW and that doesn't seem to have affected their sales whatsoever, in fact the Hobby itself seems to have seen massive growth in recent years (I believe ICV2 reported the 'hobby' market to have doubled in size in North America between 2008 and 2013 or so, but they cound card games and board games in that too).
Sqorgar wrote: You are like, super hung up on this market research thing, aren't you? Does it upset you that GW doesn't ask you personally how they should run their company?
Of course? Why else would I be saying this. Certainly not because I want them to succeed and be the kind of company I can love again.
Sqorgar wrote: What makes you think it wouldn't be? From what I understand, the WHFB fans weren't that large a group. Even at its height, it was smaller than 40k was. So you can make the very easy argument that 40k fans could support fantasy better than WHFB fans ever could. So if they were going to reboot Warhammer in an effort to make it more popular, should they keep it like it was (WHFB fans barely keeping it profitable, and leaving faster than they could be replaced by new players) or make it more like 40k (which would cannibalize their own playerbase)? Or perhaps they should take a third option altogether?
This is the exact damn reason market research is important, these are questions that might have been answered.
Sqorgar wrote: Except TSR started in 1973 and Games Workshop started in 1975, and one of those is still around today. Hint: not TSR.
Irrelevant. Even Rome fell eventually.
Sqorgar wrote: The copyright thing is a matter of scale. It happens to every corporation that reaches a specific size, and nobody uses Disney or Apple's litigiousness as proof that they are teetering on the brink of destruction. Eventually a company has reached a saturation point with its audience and they spend more time trying to keep their audience than gain a new one. If anything, Age of Sigmar is proof that they are looking for new customers rather than fighting the losing fight to keep their old ones.
TSR earned themselves the nickname T$R for trying to sue over the use of the term 'dragon'. GW over the use of fur and skulls on a model. That's the point I was trying to make.
Let me just make sure I understand what you're saying - You're saying you believe that 80% of the GW customers have never played/will never play a GW game?
jonolikespie wrote: I wasn't around for the 3.5/4th fiasco but I have heard many a tale and was there for a little of the 5th ed playtesting and it's launch and I have to say I love it where 3.5/pathfinder just felt like a poorly constructed game to me and 4th had such a reputation that no one wanted to try it out with me.
4e was actually a very good release. People complained that it was too easy or held their hand way too much (all of the exact same complaints I'm hearing now about AoS). It just changed a lot of the core mechanics of the game making it all around better, IMHO. And, it was a HUGE jumping on point for people who had never played before because you could roll up a character and be playing in no time with all the gear you needed and the ability to heal yourself.
The fight over 3.5e and 4e just reminds me of the fight that is currently going on right now between 8th Edition and AoS. No, based on AoS rules, you won't be able to play the way you used to. You may not be able to play exactly the way you liked to. But, I think, given a chance, people would actually like it a lot more than they think they would.
So, all you AoS supporters out there, keep on preachin! Let's get the AoS hype train moving again!
jonolikespie wrote: I legitimately tried to look for a list of companies that don't do market research
That will be most of them. Not just hobby games, but across the board.
Most companies are too small to instigate or benefit from any 'serious' market research. Most companies are just small.
Speaking from behind the scenes, the hobby games market has always had notorious issues with market research and, off the top of my head, I can only think of one that made any serious attempt (WotC, just before the release of 3.0 - they decided there were something like 2 million active D&D players in the US alone, so take that for what it was worth).
Now, most hobby games companies are tiny compared to GW, and things change with scale, sure. Are GW of the right size to start benefiting from market research? I really don't know (my company ain't that large), but I can understand where they are coming from on this.
jonolikespie wrote: I was going to try to find the exact quote when Kirby said the global recession didn't effect them but it is 2am here so I gave up. I will point out that every other company in the market is operating in the exact same economic circumstances as GW and that doesn't seem to have affected their sales whatsoever, in fact the Hobby itself seems to have seen massive growth in recent years
There is a line of wisdom in the hobby games industry, that may not be completely wrong, that says that hobby games are resilient to recession and may even benefit. The idea is that people would rather spend $50 on a game that could last them months than the same amount for a meal out or visit to the cinema. And there may well be truth in this.
The caveat is that if a recession continues, they get bitten just as much as everyone else. They are not immune.
jonolikespie wrote: (I believe ICV2 reported the 'hobby' market to have doubled in size in North America between 2008 and 2013 or so, but they cound card games and board games in that too).
Be careful with ICV2, their sources for this data can be indicative, but they are also extremely limited. I speak from experience on this one
The people with the real data are the distributors, primarily Alliance and ACD in the US, Esdevium in the UK. However, GW have their own channels that bypass these guys, and that has always muddied the waters.
You know on the recession issue it just occured to me that Australia is on of the worst markets for GW right now and started sliding long before the rest of the world. We never went into recession.
Plumbumbarum wrote: The best proof of Games Workshop being an arogant, snide and backwards company that loathes its consumers and doesn't give a crap about gaming is the release of Age of Sigmar
I think I've expressed my opinion on AoS enough in this thread, so I won't go into that any further. But, I will once again state that GW is not a gaming company nor will they claim to be... at least not at their core. They are a miniatures company. If writing some rules that allow you to play (only friendly, not tournament) games with their miniatures that will sell more of their miniatures, more power to them. If it brings in more money, then I don't see what it can hurt especially when the discrepancies in the rules and codices are supposed to be worked out amongst friends since it is a non-tournament, friendly game.
SG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jonolikespie wrote: You know on the recession issue it just occured to me that Australia is on of the worst markets for GW right now and started sliding long before the rest of the world. We never went into recession.
Take from that what you will.
Aren't the prices of all GW products much higher in Australia than in the rest of the world? If so, that might explain why Australia is one of the worst GW markets.
I honestly have no idea. I can only tell you what I have seen and that it is possible 80% of models do not get played.
Going a little further, I would not be surprised (I have no figures here) if 80% of Space Marines don't see a lick of paint...
(...)
You like absolutes, don't you?
No, I don't think he is saying that.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
I just dislike copping out and, with all due respect to Sarouan, that's what he's doing.
What do you think he's saying then, out of curiosity? Because whole "I'm not saying... but I'm saying" vibe in his post doesn't work for me.
And they do mean 80% of their customers, not 80% of their sales...
" In conversation, I’m told that the word “Game” in Games Workshop encourages the misconception that games are its business, but that only about 20% of Games Workshop’s customers are gamers. " Check away if necessary
So age of sigmar drops, and right off the bat my army is toast. What I mean is I played a clan morrs list, all warriors and slaves. no matter how you slice it, it's not a viable list for AoS. I do play, I bring either a fast moving eshin force, a skryre gunline, or a melee mix of rat ogres, stormvermin, and plague monks. (this gives me three "tiers" of armies.) so the game can be played, and I can bring hard lists or soft lists, but the bulk of my models are useless. (adding insult to injury all my units are on regimental bases and they don't make 20mm round bases.)
It is a different game. They extended an olive branch by making your old models work in the new game, but there's no way they could've made every model in every army as equally valid as they once were in a completely different gaming experience. I do understand your disappointment, but the transition wasn't going to be completely seamless, no matter how you looked at it.
Second, it was not all that well received. I have to call ahead to the shop to see if anyone is playing. I only have time about once a month, so aside from when it dropped and I was not working, I usually just play 40k.
I understand this as well. I have a difficult time finding other AoS players in my area as well. It's why I end up playing Warmachine every week instead of a game I like much better. I basically force my wife and friends to play, and while they like it well enough, they aren't into the hobby aspect. Showing up and playing someone else's army for a game or two isn't really the best way to experience the game. I enjoy it enough for the whole group though, and I look forward to getting my Overlord Bastion soon.
But I do think this will change over time. I think a lot of people expected AoS to be as popular as anything else out there within a few weeks of it dropping, but those games all took a long, long time to create a fanbase. Warmachine is 15 years old. Infinity is 10. Malifaux is just now getting steam, 6 or 7 years after release. Kings of War is enjoying a surge in popularity, and it's at least 6 years old as well. 40k is, I don't know, 30 or so? None of these games sprang out of Zeus's headache ready for battle. It took time to for fans to find them, understand them, and learn the best ways to enjoy them. Even after doing that, it took still more time to set up gaming groups and tournaments, websites, podcasts, and communities. I would say that a really exceptional game wouldn't hit that base level of support until three years, at a minimum, and that's an exceptional game.
I think Games Workshop is being held to a different standard, and I get that too. You'd think a lot of Fantasy players would create a built in audience, and the support in the form of online communities, market penetration, and ability to find groups can be piggybacked on the support structure already built by Games Workshop for their other games. And Age of Sigmar does benefit a LOT from that. There's more new AoS models, terrain, and novels than most mini games get in their first half decade, and I'm certain that there's plenty more where that came from. AoS also suffers a bit from that too, because the existing players are hesitant to change.
I think AoS will succeed quite strongly in small pockets, and those pockets will create the path forward for everyone else. I think that Games Workshop will continue to release models and books for the property, deepening the variety and quality over time, while slowly winning over players both old and new. I think GW will also provide additional rules. No necessarily an "Advanced Age of Sigmar" ruleset, but more like a bunch of smaller, optional rules that will fill in holes and appease concerns about the game. Ultimately, it is now that the initial buzz has worn off, and the initial heartbreak to WHFB players, that the game will begin building an audience in earnest. I think the December release window for AoS is going to be a turning point for a lot of people.
Third, the game is OK but I find that I have to always change stuff. even if I'm fine RAW my opponents usually aren't and want to try various scenarios/comps/builds. This means every encounter is vastly different, and sometimes I don't have whats needed. Again, I bring 2000 points of 40K and adjust to 1250, 1500, 500, etc.
This, I can't help you with. I believe this consternation will be alleviated as well, given time, but I couldn't begin to suggest how to deal with it right now.
Lastly, and this is the most important, AoS would need to outsell fantasy by a large margin or they will drop the game. I base this off the fact that I can't buy any specialist game. Originally this was due to shelf space but with so much direct only its obvious they don't want to support a game that does not sell well. They want a game that sells as much as 40K. I don't think they will keep re-launching fantasy, I think their thought will just be that a fantasy setting is not what the players want. I firmly believe that fantasy will go away within two years. Especially with the run-at-the-store that is about to happen with Horus Heresy.
Firstly, I think HH will only appeal to existing 40k players (I don't think people unversed in the 40k lore can even tell them apart), so GW would only be cannibalizing itself there. They won't grow an audience, though they may appease a particular existing segment that want something more balanced and complex. I admit that I love the look of 30k, but I doubt I would play it over 40k due to the cost and more niche nature.
Second, I don't think GW has ever supported their specialist games. Blood Bowl is the only one that I remember seeing any supplements for (I admit that I wasn't paying super close attention, but my comic book shop has carried GW stuff for a while). My guess is that there is a certain amount of manpower and time associated with supporting games for years and years, and they could support one game, like Blood Bowl, or they could continually create new games with those resources. I think keeping the specialist line as a bunch of one-and-done games isn't a terrible strategy, though I'm sure it is frustrating to have to buy a new version of Space Hulk every ten years.
I think them putting the golden statue of a Sigmarine in front of their headquarters was their promise to support AoS. I'd be surprised if they didn't have the next two or three years planned out, with hot pokers in the fire for beyond that. AoS only had a two or three month release window, used largely to launch the game and set up the new Stormcast army and lore. I think once they start returning to old races that have been drastically changed (such as the fyre slayers, rumored in early 2016), that we'll really start to see the level of support they intend to put into the game.
I mean, players have created this weird Catch-22 with Age of Sigmar in that they won't play it because they are afraid that GW will kill the game, but if GW kills the game, it's because there weren't enough players. I say, don't worry about all that. If you like the game, play it as often as you can. If you don't like the game, then don't play it. Things will work out one way or the other.
And they do mean 80% of their customers, not 80% of their sales...
" In conversation, I’m told that the word “Game” in Games Workshop encourages the misconception that games are its business, but that only about 20% of Games Workshop’s customers are gamers. " Check away if necessary
That's a great link. Here's some quotes from the article:
Maybe you think you’re a customer, or a potential customer, because you like playing games. But this is the important bit. This is the bit written in every Games Workshop annual report. The company’s mission statement is “we make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever.”
It does not mention games. In conversation, I’m told that the word “Game” in Games Workshop encourages the misconception that games are its business, but that only about 20% of Games Workshop’s customers are gamers. The rest are modellers and collectors. Maybe half of them think about playing now and then. The other half have no intention. People actually walk into the stores because they’re curious about modelling fantastic armies.
So of those 80% who aren't gamers, "Maybe half of them think about playing now and then". So the author is making the distinction between those who primarily game versus those who primarily hobby.
Hi Maynard. I'm not sure how precise the 20% figure is. It was bandied around in conversation rather than put on a powerpoint! That said, it's pretty obvious who Games Workshop is focused on.
(From the comments section) It should also be pointed out that, at least in this article, the author is paraphrasing.
Games are easy to sell if they catch on, but it’s the modelling aspect of Warhammer that makes it a hobby, sometimes for life, and peculiarly lucrative to Games Workshop.
Some perspective on the idea that they sell models, not games. They create life long customers through the hobby aspect, not through the game rules. And I think I agree with that. There are few games that I love enough to play for years on end, but the hobby aspect of miniatures I could see keeping me on board that long. I mean, I've own some of my Warmachine models for over a decade, and it was because I already had the models that I decided to start playing again (after I upgraded to Mk2 cards).
The company cannot divulge sales figures, its in a closed period and Age of Sigmar is only in its third month, but in terms of other metrics, downloads and Sigmar themed magazine sales, management seems more than satisfied. Anyway, it’s at pains to point out, Warhammer Age of Sigmar is a long-term investment.
I'm not sure whether this is saying that they are satisfied with AoS in general, or if they are satisfied with the financial information they can share (those "other metrics").
"It is a different game. They extended an olive branch by making your old models work in the new game, but there's no way they could've made every model in every army as equally valid as they once were in a completely different gaming experience. I do understand your disappointment, but the transition wasn't going to be completely seamless, no matter how you looked at it."
They shifted to larger units in 7th, and really ramped up the points and model count during end times, then discontinue the game and replace it with a skirmish game.
As you say, they have a 2-3 production cycle.
That doesn't mean its a new or different game, that means its a bait and switch.
I think after looking at everything I'm just gonna take a break. I'll pack everything up and organize it into sellable chunks. At some point either GW will put out a game that is for my "type," or something that needs a lot of resources will come along and I'll just sell it off.
I wonder what the market for a welded steel Ork Landa is? It's only 35 pounds. (weight, not currency.)
I'm keeping the bike though, It's a hit at bike nights and rallies.
Sqorgar wrote: Show me on the doll where Games Workshop touched you...
This exact statement got me my final warning elsewhere... ah, memories.
I must admit, I do think it weird that *any* company doesn't do market research, but as I have no experience or even theoretical qualifications in that regard I can't really comment.
But even for a miniatures company, a game and setting for those miniatures provides the hook for buying them. Stating they are a miniatures company simply means their focus is on the minis.
Mantic are an excellent example of the reverse. Games first, product second. That philosophy really shows, too.
Even in that thread regarding 'terrible minis or terrible rules', a lot of people were stating that they like GW minis but use them for other games to get the best of both worlds.
The parallels with Apple are actually fair too. They are ubiquitous, highly visible and rigorously enforce a public persona of producing a premium quality product.
Then you actually get hold of that product, and in some cases the O/S or user experience puts you off ever having anything to do with that logo again...
Although I'll be extremely interested to see where PP are on their hard styrene kits in 5 years' time - a lot of potential there given what they've been able to do with metal and that awful quasi-resin.
AoS isn't a "terrible" game because GW hate gamers, don't do market research or whatever.
It is a "terrible" game because it has been designed as a low-entry cost, entirely open-ended, infinitely expandable ruleset & universe that will support the release of anything the miniatures studio can come up with.
pox wrote: "It is a different game. They extended an olive branch by making your old models work in the new game, but there's no way they could've made every model in every army as equally valid as they once were in a completely different gaming experience. I do understand your disappointment, but the transition wasn't going to be completely seamless, no matter how you looked at it."
They shifted to larger units in 7th, and really ramped up the points and model count during end times, then discontinue the game and replace it with a skirmish game.
As you say, they have a 2-3 production cycle.
That doesn't mean its a new or different game, that means its a bait and switch.
This. A thousand times this. Have an Exalt.
Though I did have the stomach to shelve it. I shelved after 6th. I traded after AoS. They most likely will never get me back.
Well, I don't know if GW really has 80% of their customers more in the collection than the game, but I believe there is a significant part of them.
I must say that even if I don't play AoS right now (well, it's more of a lack of player), I find myself still wanting to collect the miniatures I like. Even if I don't "use them" and just put them on display on my shelf.
And I also must say than my collection of more than 100 sisters of battle models for 40k was not really meant to play them all at once. It's not like I got to play Apocalypse all week ends.
So yeah...the collection part? I totally can understand it.
Still, I like to play as well. But the reason why I keep buying miniatures from GW from time to time, well...it's not really for GW games alone, in fact. To me, at least.
Plumbumbarum wrote: The best proof of Games Workshop being an arogant, snide and backwards company that loathes its consumers and doesn't give a crap about gaming is the release of Age of Sigmar
Show me on the doll where Games Workshop touched you...
Ok then. I've managed to dodge getting into any serious discussion in what is basicaly a huge bait thread for 15 pages. I dodged commenting on AoS optimist bashing people for directly answering OP claims. I dodged commenting on your little insults towards MWHistorian despite it being a great example of how this discussions work where critics comment on the game, optimists comment on critics. I dodged commenting on optimist attacking mods for "giving critics a pass" where I for example was banned each time I crossed the line for things that wouldn't even get me a warning on other forums I frequent. Ofc I am an agressive poster and deserved it here, in fact I appreciate attempts to keep this forum civil for a change vs internets, anyway it's a good example of bs claim from optimists that just begs for a reaction.
So, I dodged all those but you are something else, it's not just your boorish posts but the way you dodge actual arguments posting outragous claims like how most people negative towards AoS are minmaxing waac, or not well adjusted, cmon man stay classy. Not only it's cheap but an obvious fallacy and going personal usually means you already lost on proper arguments and for all the bad traits attributed to AoS critics, you don't see them sweeping AoS fans like that, hey even I don't and believe that should get you thinking.
Now, the doll. GW touched the area of my right pocket and not gently that's for sure. Fun fact is, you will not find a single post from me bashing their prices and you can find my posts about how they make the best plastics where I'm called fine GW fanboy. Their politics killed a shop I liked in my area, you won't find me commenting on that, it's crap ofc but bussiness is hard and all. Ofc I was always bashing their embrassingly bad rules writing and garbage rulesets but was still symphatetic towards the studio. When AoS hit, the way it was done, the beyond garbage rules, the arrogance, the lack of creativity, it didn't make me sad or angry, it made me laugh. You think them haters are sitting there foaming at the mouth and kicking the cat but this is me for example when discussing Age of Sigmar:
In fact I became thankful very fast because it exposed the company beyond any doubt and set me free from the nostalgia and any loyalty I had, I stopped buying 40k as well thanks to it. Fantasy, as someone else said, was spared the horror of Bloodsecrators and Murderheim so it's probably good that it's dead, not good for GW who dimnished the importance of their huge brand and will suffer for it but good for the setting itself. So no it's not sad minmaxing bigots suffering from bad touch, it's just a cringeworthy company that exposed itself and is now a laughing stock of the industry.
It depends what you mean by "collection". I certainly own a lot more figures and kits for various different games including 40K than I have ever finished painting. This is because I am a wargamer, and I know that I will only die when all my lead is painted. Many wargamers are like this.
However I've given up playing 40K because of the state of the rules, and I don't buy any models for it because I'm not going to play it. I'm also not going to play AoS because I haven't got any Fantasy models and I don't want to spend the money it would take to make even a small army.
I dunno what GW is smoking when they came up with the 20-80 split. Even if it was true, if you took the numbers of regular buyers rather than ones who drop off, the longer you examin that sample the more the numbers are going to level because playing the game is what keeps most players in the hobby.
And then if you took into account players that aspire to play the game, the numbers are gonna shift in the opposite direction. Even if it's likely they will never play a game because they are the only person who lives on a tiny Pacific island and have to get stuff airmailed, the idea that one day they could play a game is often enough to keep them buying and collecting.
It makes me really sad when I see GW changing what used to say "You're about to delve into the exciting world of battles in the distant future", to "You're about to delve into the exciting world of COLLECTING CITADEL MINIATURES". It misses the point in my opinion.
But wait, why are we talking about this in relation to the OP, haha?
Because the OP said that the criticisms of AOS are from misunderstandinds. And the counter argument is that the critics do understand it and still don't like it.
So why people dont like it is very much on topic.
Bottle wrote: I'm lost at how the "80-20 split" has any relation to this.
One could argue that if GW think that the vast majority of their customers don't play their games anyway, that might explain AoS... It doesn't matter how good the game is, if it's just an excuse to buy miniatures and nobody's actually going to play it anyway...
Yep, I have fun with AoS but I see this attitude in their lack of gaming support on their website and in White Dwarf. They need to make the game the focal point again and I think lots will agree with that regardless if you like AoS or not.
Sqorgar wrote: I think AoS will succeed quite strongly in small pockets, and those pockets will create the path forward for everyone else. I think that Games Workshop will continue to release models and books for the property, deepening the variety and quality over time, while slowly winning over players both old and new. I think GW will also provide additional rules. No necessarily an "Advanced Age of Sigmar" ruleset, but more like a bunch of smaller, optional rules that will fill in holes and appease concerns about the game. Ultimately, it is now that the initial buzz has worn off, and the initial heartbreak to WHFB players, that the game will begin building an audience in earnest. I think the December release window for AoS is going to be a turning point for a lot of people.
The last time GW released new rules to fix problems or concerns with a game like that would have been probably 2002? They fixed the Assault phase for 40k and gave terminators invun saves back in the day. These days they charge people for things like Escelation and Stronghold Assault which where NOT what fans were asking for and they seem to have entirely stopped doing FAQs again. They have given no indication they will do this, it's wishful thinking.
Sqorgar wrote: Second, I don't think GW has ever supported their specialist games. Blood Bowl is the only one that I remember seeing any supplements for (I admit that I wasn't paying super close attention, but my comic book shop has carried GW stuff for a while). My guess is that there is a certain amount of manpower and time associated with supporting games for years and years, and they could support one game, like Blood Bowl, or they could continually create new games with those resources. I think keeping the specialist line as a bunch of one-and-done games isn't a terrible strategy, though I'm sure it is frustrating to have to buy a new version of Space Hulk every ten years.
You are wrong. GW did support their specialist games quite well. If I go through my roommate's bookshelf I'll find plenty of articles about them, as well as lots of new releases. Inquisitor had it's own shelf in GW stores with the whole line on offer once upon a time. Epic 40k for Emperor's sake was their 3rd core game before LotR. The support stopped one day and that is why specialist games slowly died.
Bottle wrote: Yep, I have fun with AoS but I see this attitude in their lack of gaming support on their website and in White Dwarf. They need to make the game the focal point again and I think lots will agree with that regardless if you like AoS or not.
Absolutely. And I think that's a large part of the immediate distaste that some people met the game with... This really came across as a poorly thought out patch job, rather than a serious game offering.
Specific game mechanics issues aside (as they're going to always largely be a matter of personal preference) I strongly suspect that if GW had presented AoS as an alternate way to use your WHFB minis, it would have been met with much more positivity. There still would have been those cynics who would have seen it as just a cash grab, but for the most part I think it would have been met with the same sort of reaction as 40K in 40 minutes was... as a fun new way to play smaller, faster games with your existing collection.
I don't think the game is terrible for what it is in its own right... It's just as the spiritual successor to WHFB that it's so very, very bad.
And as a standalone game, it's lost in the sea of other, better, skirmish games.
Sqorgar wrote: Second, I don't think GW has ever supported their specialist games. Blood Bowl is the only one that I remember seeing any supplements for (I admit that I wasn't paying super close attention, but my comic book shop has carried GW stuff for a while). My guess is that there is a certain amount of manpower and time associated with supporting games for years and years, and they could support one game, like Blood Bowl, or they could continually create new games with those resources. I think keeping the specialist line as a bunch of one-and-done games isn't a terrible strategy, though I'm sure it is frustrating to have to buy a new version of Space Hulk every ten years.
You are wrong. GW did support their specialist games quite well. If I go through my roommate's bookshelf I'll find plenty of articles about them, as well as lots of new releases. Inquisitor had it's own shelf in GW stores with the whole line on offer once upon a time. Epic 40k for Emperor's sake was their 3rd core game before LotR. The support stopped one day and that is why specialist games slowly died.
Not to mention that at one point all of the Specialist games had their own periodic magazines introducing new content. Some of them didn't last long due to lack of interest, but GWdid most certainly put in the effort.
I admit that I could be wrong about the Specialist Games. I didn't pay much attention to GW at the time, though I do remember seeing the Inquisitor models as well as a box for Mordheim. I just don't remember them as being much of a line of games with a bunch of releases. If they were, it's possible that my comic book shop simply didn't stock them.
insaniak wrote: Absolutely. And I think that's a large part of the immediate distaste that some people met the game with... This really came across as a poorly thought out patch job, rather than a serious game offering.
Specific game mechanics issues aside (as they're going to always largely be a matter of personal preference) I strongly suspect that if GW had presented AoS as an alternate way to use your WHFB minis, it would have been met with much more positivity. There still would have been those cynics who would have seen it as just a cash grab, but for the most part I think it would have been met with the same sort of reaction as 40K in 40 minutes was... as a fun new way to play smaller, faster games with your existing collection.
I don't think the game is terrible for what it is in its own right... It's just as the spiritual successor to WHFB that it's so very, very bad.
And as a standalone game, it's lost in the sea of other, better, skirmish games.
I agree entirely. AoS does feel a bit like they knew they had to reinvigorate WHFB but the only way they know how to get sales any more is to kill it and re-release it with Spehss Mareenz.
And definitely if it had of come out alongside WHFB it would have copped far less flak. You can talk about how AoS isn't supposed to "replace" WHFB, it's supposed to be "new" and you can talk about how GW had no other choice.... I still think it was a stupid arse move on GW's behalf to alienate all the people who liked WHFB for WHFB and not just an excuse to collect citadel models and paints (add some sarcastic TM symbols there if you want ).
It's not a bad game for a skirmish game written on 4 pages.... but IMO that doesn't make it good, especially in a market flooded with good skirmish game alternatives.
As it is, AoS has halted my WHFB progress. I had 2 armies on the go and was working on random units from another 2 armies, that's now completely stopped and unless things change dramatically I expect them to sit on my shelf until I decide I need the space and throw them in the trash.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I agree entirely. AoS does feel a bit like they knew they had to reinvigorate WHFB but the only way they know how to get sales any more is to kill it and re-release it with Spehss Mareenz.
And definitely if it had of come out alongside WHFB it would have copped far less flak. You can talk about how AoS isn't supposed to "replace" WHFB, it's supposed to be "new" and you can talk about how GW had no other choice.... I still think it was a stupid arse move on GW's behalf to alienate all the people who liked WHFB for WHFB and not just an excuse to collect citadel models and paints (add some sarcastic TM symbols there if you want ).
With all due respect, has Games Workshop EVER done something that hasn't been met with cynicism, scorn, or outright contempt? Like, seriously. If GW had announce WHFB 9th Edition, would things have really been any different? Or would it be the exact same people complaining about how they nerfed this or broke that, or how this army got squatted or that army got too much attention? The heroes are too power or magic is too game breaking. Wouldn't we still hear people yelling about how they were wronged by GW and how they were leaving for KoW? Wouldn't we still be having cynical conversations about how GW changed this rule or that to sell more models because they aren't a games company? Or hear from people who think that doing a 9th Edition was the wrong decision and if only they did market research?
MOST of the complaints against AoS are complaints against Games Workshop, and I'd argue that we'd be seeing the exact same complaints - possibly from the exact same posters. Because nothing Games Workshop ever does is good enough, and some injustice in the past put them on people's dog house, and even if GW was just walking down the street, minding its own business, people would still find a reason that it was the most evil, corrupt piece of walking that has ever been walked. Because only toy companies walk like that.
I don't think Games Workshop did alienate WHFB players. I think they were already alienated. And the reason they are so upset isn't because of what GW did, so much as whatever GW didn't do. Whatever insane, half baked idea they have that is the One True Way to run a company that GW doesn't follow to the letter is some sort of personal insult. If only they'd done the thing I wanted them to do!
Seriously, I'm realizing now that it isn't about AoS. It never was. It's all just an excuse to sling gak at Games Workshop. And it doesn't matter which game was released, it still would've been a gak slinging excuse to the people who actively seek to hate and punish Games Workshop for whatever the hell transgression.
As it is, AoS has halted my WHFB progress. I had 2 armies on the go and was working on random units from another 2 armies, that's now completely stopped and unless things change dramatically I expect them to sit on my shelf until I decide I need the space and throw them in the trash.
That... doesn't sound like Age of Sigmar's doing. That's like saying Toyota came out with a new model of Corolla, so you're not going bother filling your older one up with gas. Yeah, totally Toyota's fault.
It is a beer and pretzels game, Geedub said so themselves.
There would likley be alot less outrage if it was a standalone game as opposed to the game that is supposed to replace Warhammer Fantasy.
Sqorgar wrote: If GW had announce WHFB 9th Edition, would things have really been any different?
Yes. Don't be silly, there's no way it would have been the same. Of course it would have been met with SOME criticism, all change is met with SOME criticism, but there's no way it would have been met with the same level of disdain as killing it entirely and releasing AoS.
Things don't happen for no reason or "just because GW did it".
As it is, AoS has halted my WHFB progress. I had 2 armies on the go and was working on random units from another 2 armies, that's now completely stopped and unless things change dramatically I expect them to sit on my shelf until I decide I need the space and throw them in the trash.
That... doesn't sound like Age of Sigmar's doing. That's like saying Toyota came out with a new model of Corolla, so you're not going bother filling your older one up with gas. Yeah, totally Toyota's fault.
That's a completely absurd analogy. You buy a car, you get a complete car and you drive that car. When you fill it up with fuel, you don't buy the fuel from Toyota. You have a predetermined warranty period but other than that you simply bought a product and then your relationship with the car company ends.
A wargame is not remotely similar. If you want to make a car analogy you'd have to use an example of a do it yourself car that you buy piece by piece often over the course of several years that you build yourself and then buy a bunch of paints and paint it yourself and then you can only drive that car on race tracks with people who own similar cars and if no one exists to race against your car sits in the garage doing nothing. Then a few years later with only a few months warning Toyota says they're not going to be supporting your kit car any more but instead start supporting do it yourself go karts.
It would still be an absurd analogy but at least it would be in the same galaxy.
With all due respect, has Games Workshop EVER done something that hasn't been met with cynicism, scorn, or outright contempt?
Space Hulk new edition back in 07. Only complaint I heard about it was that GW didn't produce nearly enoug!
You really have to understand this mentality and hostility between the company and the consumers is something that has built over a long time as GW changed into the company they are today. It wasn't always like this.
Sqorgar wrote: With all due respect, has Games Workshop EVER done something that hasn't been met with cynicism, scorn, or outright contempt?
Not since the late '90s, I'd say. Which is, coincidentally enough, around about the time they put their corporate hats on and started their gradual slide, communicating progressively less and less with their customer base and not surprisingly starting to swing ever wider of the mark with each successive product release.
They very nearly got it back with the release of 5th edition 40K... While it turned out ot have some fairly large flaws, the initial news that it was being written by Allessio Cavatore with an eye towards making a more tournament-friendly ruleset was initially met with an awful lot of enthuism. But then they backslid into the 'tournaments are evil' mindset that has made them what they are today.
It's really easy to just dismiss the attitude of GW's customer base towards the company as some irrational internet thing... but only until you stop and compare the reception GW releases tend to receive (which is far from universally negative, even so. Good releases do still receive their share of praise) to that of any other game company currently in the market. Or even more telling, comparing GW's reception to Forgeworld's... a company that is owned by GW, but run with more of an eye towards producing things that their customers actually want.
Edit - Space Hulk is a really good point, actually. The actual game re-release was met with an incredible amount of excitement. It was only GW's choice to do it as a limited release that got people cranky.
Dismiss all criticism of AOS under a blanket of "Haterz be hatin'."
That's a very closed minded and inaccurate way to look at the situation.
It also makes having a rational conversation with you impossible.
I don't hate AOS. I think it's silly and lazy, but I don't hate it. The concept is a legitimate one, but like most things GW does lately, it fails in its execution. If it had been actually good, I would have shrugged my shoulders, gave a golf clap and continued on.
But right now, AOS is like the Donald Trump of the gaming world. You kind of have to talk about it.
Yep GW do manage to sour some of even their best moves in recent years. Space Hulk being a limited run, Adeptus Mechanicus being broken into two books for no reason.
I think they are slowly getting better. For example the recent Tau release was a really nice idea as it allowed players with the old codex to buy a campaign suppliment instead of the updated codex to get the new rules (and that campaign suppliment looks incredibly cool in of itself).
The new 30k boardgame is also being well accepted it seems. It's a release obviously targetted to veterens who want to get a quick start to playing 30k. The only "odd" thing about it is GW have to pretend it's some boardgame when everyone knows the models will largely be used for 30k.
AoS had some universally accepted good ideas. For example free rules. I think everyone loves the idea of free rules and I hope the same comes to 40k as it is a big barrier in me getting back into it.
With all due respect, has Games Workshop EVER done something that hasn't been met with cynicism, scorn, or outright contempt?
Out of the top of my head:
Bloodbowl
Mordheim
Necromunda
Battlefleet Gothic
Space Hulk - all its versions
Inquisitor
Warhammer 6th ed was actually a breath of fresh air from 5th ed's heldenhammer
Warhammer 40k 5th ed was also pretty decent
Apocalypse also had positive reviews.
The problem is the more recent years, in case you hadn't noticed...
I'd say most editions of WHFB except for 8th were quite well received. 8th lost a lot of people right off the bat because of random charge distance and the rules favouring larger games.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'd say most editions of WHFB except for 8th were quite well received. 8th lost a lot of people right off the bat because of random charge distance and the rules favouring larger games.
I can say that these two changes alone caused a couple of our players to just drop the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bottle wrote: Yep GW do manage to sour some of even their best moves in recent years. Space Hulk being a limited run, Adeptus Mechanicus being broken into two books for no reason.
I think they are slowly getting better. For example the recent Tau release was a really nice idea as it allowed players with the old codex to buy a campaign suppliment instead of the updated codex to get the new rules (and that campaign suppliment looks incredibly cool in of itself).
The new 30k boardgame is also being well accepted it seems. It's a release obviously targetted to veterens who want to get a quick start to playing 30k. The only "odd" thing about it is GW have to pretend it's some boardgame when everyone knows the models will largely be used for 30k.
AoS had some universally accepted good ideas. For example free rules. I think everyone loves the idea of free rules and I hope the same comes to 40k as it is a big barrier in me getting back into it.
The AdMech books decision still fething baffle me and I agree (gasp!) that the Tau codex/supplement thingie is a good idea... they just needed to sort out the internal balancing of the faction without resorting to "lulz use formations noob" - because we all know formations were SUCH a welcomed improvement to 40k... But I approve greatly of the idea itself, because it will save players money if they just don't like the rules/feel of the new models.
However... the free rules thing was pretty much a marketing manoeuver from GW because you immediately had two "sourcebooks" to buy that had the scenarios necessary to minimize the lack of balancing, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the free rules bit (I am not even going into the quality of said rules).
And the doubling of cost of army books (and 40K Codexes.) I think that decision was perhaps GW's worst in a long time. GW's serious sales decline started when the 40K Codex price went from £15 to £30 at the launch of 6th edition.
Yes, there is a lot of criticism. Some of it is rather silly, like the claims that AoS is "worst game ever" or not even playable as a game. Obviously it's completely playable whether you like it or not.
But there are completely valid criticisms to be made of lots of things GW do. The amount of criticism certainly has increased since I joined DakkaDakka in early 2005. I take this as a reflection of GW going further and further off track, compared to how things were 10 years ago.
Kilkrazy wrote: And the doubling of cost of army books (and 40K Codexes.) I think that decision was perhaps GW's worst in a long time. GW's serious sales decline started when the 40K Codex price went from £15 to £30 at the launch of 6th edition.
Yes, there is a lot of criticism. Some of it is rather silly, like the claims that AoS is "worst game ever" or not even playable as a game. Obviously it's completely playable whether you like it or not.
But there are completely valid criticisms to be made of lots of things GW do. The amount of criticism certainly has increased since I joined DakkaDakka in early 2005. I take this as a reflection of GW going further and further off track, compared to how things were 10 years ago.
A lovely example of this:
People really liked the idea of having the BRB condensed into a small, no bull gak format when it started coming out with starter boxes. The secondary market was flooded with it, and I am sure GW made quite more than a few bucks on that. And then they decided to get greedy and make that same book a standalone while costing thrice the secondary market's cost, and removed them from the starter sets.
Why? Because feth the customers having cheap options!
Fans don't really care about money invested into their passion. Collectors as well.
AoS books are more for the collection and the background than the rules themselves - because, well, you can have them on the website anyway. Sure, there are battleplans as well and some formations...but honestly, you don't really need those to play. Battleplans in particular are more the skeleton of a scenario that the players will adapt to their armies, anyway.
And yes, they're expansive, because what is expansive is obviously of higher quality and thus, higher value.
However, I must agree with that;
Bottle wrote: Yep, I have fun with AoS but I see this attitude in their lack of gaming support on their website and in White Dwarf. They need to make the game the focal point again and I think lots will agree with that regardless if you like AoS or not.
Because I sometimes have a strange "Hobbit" feeling when I see the difference of display between AoS and 40k. Maybe that's unavoidable, maybe fantasy is really the "low horse" nowadays against SF, maybe AoS was just a way to keep selling old kits of Warhammer boxes. I don't know.
What I know is that I see more repackaged boxes for other races than Stormcast Eternals than true new miniatures. For a company saying they're selling the best in the market, well...that's strange. Sure, the newest kits from Lizardmen are very nice, but old Saurus and Skinks base troops would certainly have been better if they were resculpted like the Tau Crisis Suits and Fire Warriors.
Or maybe it's just me here. I'm thinking they will do the same for Aelfs and Duardins, keeping all the old kits for basic troops. That would be a shame for High Elves and Dwarf grunts - because you can see the difference between the old ones and the newest ones, IMHO.
Sarouan wrote: Fans don't really care about money invested into their passion. Collectors as well.
AoS books are more for the collection and the background than the rules themselves - because, well, you can have them on the website anyway. Sure, there are battleplans as well and some formations...but honestly, you don't really need those to play. Battleplans in particular are more the skeleton of a scenario that the players will adapt to their armies, anyway.
And yes, they're expansive, because what is expansive is obviously of higher quality and thus, higher value.
Sorry I have been a fan of FB/40k for over a decade, but I am not blind to ignore the fact that GW has effectively begun outpricing me - I can only willing go so far in ignoring their blatant price hikes in order to milk their "true" fans of all possible money.
Being a fan is not the same as being blind.
But hey, maybe i'm not a fan after all. After all I started questioning the Pied Piper.
Or maybe it's just me here. I'm thinking they will do the same for Aelfs and Duardins, keeping all the old kits for basic troops. That would be a shame for High Elves and Dwarf grunts - because you can see the difference between the old ones and the newest ones, IMHO.
I'd disagree here. The reason for that being that at present there have been *no* visual representations of Duardin or Aelf in any of the books released so far, with the exception of the Brotherhood-of-Grungni style Red/Fyreslayers.
Given how tetchy GW are now about IP etc., this (to me, anyway) screams that we're looking at a full new faction release, à la Stormcast.
In the case of Duardin, I think the only possible carry over will be the Hammerers, Gyrocopter and Lord, because stylistically these are quite a departure from the models before - and may have been a move in the Duardin direction.
Or maybe it's just me here. I'm thinking they will do the same for Aelfs and Duardins, keeping all the old kits for basic troops. That would be a shame for High Elves and Dwarf grunts - because you can see the difference between the old ones and the newest ones, IMHO.
I'd disagree here. The reason for that being that at present there have been *no* visual representations of Duardin or Aelf in any of the books released so far, with the exception of the Brotherhood-of-Grungni style Red/Fyreslayers.
Given how tetchy GW are now about IP etc., this (to me, anyway) screams that we're looking at a full new faction release, à la Stormcast.
In the case of Duardin, I think the only possible carry over will be the Hammerers, Gyrocopter and Lord, because stylistically these are quite a departure from the models before - and may have been a move in the Duardin direction.
Agreed. On the Aelfs side, I'd look for the older kits. Namely the core units.
I'm guessing we'll see dual kits for archers with some additional ranged weapon, and for spearmen to allow them to use swords aswell. We'll likely see new Silvers helms too, with a possible dual kit for Reavers.
Chariots/PG/WL/DP/Phoenixes/Dragons will probably remain untouched and just get a rebasing. IoB SM's will likely get a box of their own.
Kilkrazy wrote: And the doubling of cost of army books (and 40K Codexes.) I think that decision was perhaps GW's worst in a long time. GW's serious sales decline started when the 40K Codex price went from £15 to £30 at the launch of 6th edition.
Yes, there is a lot of criticism. Some of it is rather silly, like the claims that AoS is "worst game ever" or not even playable as a game. Obviously it's completely playable whether you like it or not.
But there are completely valid criticisms to be made of lots of things GW do. The amount of criticism certainly has increased since I joined DakkaDakka in early 2005. I take this as a reflection of GW going further and further off track, compared to how things were 10 years ago.
Yes, they do indeed make a lot of stupid decisions. Even as a fan of GW, it's like being between a rock and a hard place: angry and bitter players (or former players) on one side, and Tom Kirby's incompetence on the other... it's quite frustrating because unlike the most ardent GW detractors, I don't dislike the direction they're going in - just the way they're going about it. They clumsily stumble around, making some great decisions and some baffling ones, coming so close to greatness one month and then veering off in a completely different direction the next. To make matters worse, they fail to communicate any of this to the fanbase, leaving all of us in the dark. I like AoS, i like the direction 40k is going, but the devil is in the details...
In what way were whfb players already alienated before AoS?
Afaik, whfb wasn't even loosing money for GW, it just wasn't earning enough for them. Also, while anecdotal, there was a lot of evidence that whfb lost a huge amount on players on transition from 7th to 8th edition so a natural step maybe would be fixing whfb, especialy given the nature of the game where people invest, build, paint and plan for decades? But hey it might not be that smooth to shoehorn fantasy space marines there for the ultimate cash grab, not to mention make the silly and pointless attempts at copyrighting everything. The whole argument that AoS was inevitable and only way to keep GW doing fantasy is bsimo, it's just pure greed behind those decisions.
It's not that GW gets flak for everything they do from their psycho exes former fans, btw good to see attempts at finding a common psychological trait going strong. It's just that GW fails at everything they do, lot of people wanted a faster release scheulde for example but I doubt that a lot wanted it to look like that, sensory overload of dlc esque releases with significant deterioration in art and writing quality. Lot of people wanted lower entry point to the game but I doubt buying whatever and playing right away against whatever is what they meant. Etc, there's no reasonable middleground in what they do just some hysteric swings towards extremes and poor execution everywhere.
Also, as hard as embarassing it is to admit for a foaming at the mouth notorious hater of whatever GW does, I sometimes check the Age of Sigmar books because while it will never replace the magical yet grounded grim and gritty whfb, it could become another choice for that magic magical he man fantasy fix when I get one, as in, let's give it a chance as a standalone product. And I do find a few cool things there, it's ofc dissapointing to see for example undead that went from realistic fantasy gothic horror in whfb to cartoonish blue smoke swirling something straight from Warcraft/ Darksiders/ Heroes of M&M but droping the comparisions, it's still fantasy with chaos and chaos is cool, no? Well it somehow isn't for me in AoS, can't put my finger on why but at least there are daemons, it's hard to spoil friggen' daemons. Dryads while videogamey are ok still imo and the whole Sylvaneth faction has potential, there are good things either inherited or coming from the good artist (as End Times stuff and latest WE stuff seems to have been released with AoS in mind). But then come the sigmarines, I have to come out again and say that the leader on the lizard horse hound lion who almost looks like just a guy in the helmet is kinda but barely ok (for a he man type of setting ofc). The standard sigmarines though, they spoil everything each time, I was never a fan of sanguinary guard but at least those weren't fat and stupid not to mention that sigmarines don't fit so obviously and are so bad conceptualy and visualy that it rings the bs bell imediatelly. Really they ruin it for me no matter how open minded I come at it, and I did come open minded, repeatedly, to rules, to art, to concepts and all this haters crap is bs. Sadly, no matter how open minded my aproach, it still looks silly, soulless, forced and put together in a way that never clicks.
To give credit where it's due though, at least they had enough brain to not introduce sigmarines to the Old World. Thank you, GW.
Sorry I have been a fan of FB/40k for over a decade, but I am not blind to ignore the fact that GW has effectively begun outpricing me - I can only willing go so far in ignoring their blatant price hikes in order to milk their "true" fans of all possible money.
I think that might swing back to my Premium Product comment yesterday!
I'm in a strange place with GW - I got back in to the hobby about 4 years ago and every book I've bought bought since 2011 has been made obsolete. Two Marines books (didn't buy the 'latest'), Space Wolves, Lizardmen, Chaos, Vampire Counts, Eldar... and 40k has had THREE rules releases in that time.
Afaik, whfb wasn't even loosing money for GW, it just wasn't earning enough for them. Also, while anecdotal, there was a lot of evidence that whfb lost a huge amount on players on transition from 7th to 8th edition so a natural step maybe would be fixing whfb, especialy given the nature of the game where people invest, build, paint and plan for decades? But hey it might not be that smooth to shoehorn fantasy space marines there for the ultimate cash grab, not to mention make the silly and pointless attempts at copyrighting everything. The whole argument that AoS was inevitable and only way to keep GW doing fantasy is bsimo, it's just pure greed behind those decisions.
So, a bunch of WHFB left after 8th and you are wondering how they were already alienated?
My guess is that the WHFB players were getting old. I'll bet the average player is in his 30s, or possibly even older. Saving the old guard without creating hooks for new, younger players to start playing wouldn't have increased the revenues for Fantasy for long. Once you've got kids, your disposable income drops significantly. The ideal age to target is teens and young adults, which I don't think a Tolkienesque fantasy setting appeals to anymore (especially after The Hobbit movies).
Age of Sigmar didn't just change to round bases. The lore itself was moved away from Tolkien-level fantasy to a more epic, mythological level. You've got a god king flying around space, resurrecting warriors of valor to fight in a losing battle against a world lost to chaos and darkness. The Stormcast are designed as a cross between two Greek gods: Helios, the sun god, and Ares, the god of war. Their backstory is similar to the einherjar, warriors brought to Valhalla to prepare for Ragnarok. This isn't wizards and goblins - this is gods and demons. And I think that setting does more to differentiate itself and appeal to younger players then the setting so generic that Games Workshop literally couldn't even protect it in court. It's also more of a power fantasy, which appeals more to teenagers, which is exactly what GW probably wants. So it isn't just a copyright issue, but an appeal issue.
And it's more of a trademark issue than a copyright one. Yeah, GW was pissed that Chapter House was making bits for their models (which they can't really do anything about, legally), but the real issue is that they were selling space marine pauldrons, which looked like space marine pauldrons, as "space marine pauldrons", which creates confusion in the marketplace because it looks and sounds official. With a more fortified trademark, they wouldn't be able to do that. They'd have to call it "pauldrons for you space guy", and they wouldn't be able to easily copy the pauldrons because the look of the space marines would be more unique and thus more protected. With Fantasy, they can't just rebrand the Aelfs and Duardin, they need to look physically unique - which is probably why the fantasy armies getting reboxes are the non-generic, non-human-looking figures.
And GW won't share what the new stuff looks like until the models are closer to release to prevent other companies from sneaking in there and releasing some first, diluting GW's own claim to protection. It's not a dick move. It's survival. It's why Apple only announces the new iPhones a few weeks before they are released. On the bright side, I think it is going to make from some amazing looking armies in the future. I'm really curious how they will make the undead look less like generic skeletons.
It's not that GW gets flak for everything they do from their psycho exes former fans, btw good to see attempts at finding a common psychological trait going strong. It's just that GW fails at everything they do
So, it's not that people complain about everything GW does, it's that everything GW does is worth complaining about? To quote the tv show Justified, "If you meet an donkey-cave in the morning, you met an donkey-cave. If you meet donkey-caves all day, you're the donkey-cave."
Sorry I have been a fan of FB/40k for over a decade, but I am not blind to ignore the fact that GW has effectively begun outpricing me - I can only willing go so far in ignoring their blatant price hikes in order to milk their "true" fans of all possible money.
I think that might swing back to my Premium Product comment yesterday!
I'm in a strange place with GW - I got back in to the hobby about 4 years ago and every book I've bought bought since 2011 has been made obsolete. Two Marines books (didn't buy the 'latest'), Space Wolves, Lizardmen, Chaos, Vampire Counts, Eldar... and 40k has had THREE rules releases in that time.
I can't even.
The thing is, saying/claiming now that their goods are premium is not nearly enough to justify their price increases. Sure, their models are pretty good but... 25€ for an Interrogator-Chaplain? 45€ for a Codex? That is way, way too much.
I won't repeat myself on my stand about GW - I left it elsewhere in this thread already. Let's just say that if I do buy Warhammer-related models, they certainly won't be BNIB
MOST of the complaints against AoS are complaints against Games Workshop, and I'd argue that we'd be seeing the exact same complaints - possibly from the exact same posters. Because nothing Games Workshop ever does is good enough, and some injustice in the past put them on people's dog house, and even if GW was just walking down the street, minding its own business, people would still find a reason that it was the most evil, corrupt piece of walking that has ever been walked. Because only toy companies walk like that.
I don't think Games Workshop did alienate WHFB players. I think they were already alienated. And the reason they are so upset isn't because of what GW did, so much as whatever GW didn't do. Whatever insane, half baked idea they have that is the One True Way to run a company that GW doesn't follow to the letter is some sort of personal insult. If only they'd done the thing I wanted them to do!
Seriously, I'm realizing now that it isn't about AoS. It never was. It's all just an excuse to sling gak at Games Workshop. And it doesn't matter which game was released, it still would've been a gak slinging excuse to the people who actively seek to hate and punish Games Workshop for whatever the hell transgression.
The opposition to AoS as the successor of WHFB should be judged on the merits of it's arguments and not automatically invalided because there may or may not be an underlying hatred of GW. And vice versa.
GW still makes the best models, or at least has the best quality/price in the quantity packages, not many other manufacturers even taking in http://unsupported-armies.blogspot.cz/ into account. if you want to build up a regiment of 20+ units GW is still the best way to go for price and comparative quality. As someone who is invested in 8th edition and potentially a future 9th Age player it will totally break the future prospects of this hobby for these systems if GW adopts a skirmish based unit package system for sale, and that is one of the things I fear with AoS being a skirmish game at core.
As for AoS if you are fine with skirmish or prefer it then it's great. But if you want regiments and huge armies then it sucks compared to 8th. And yes KoW is a good alternative but like pointed out by others KoW is not a Heroic Fantasy Game, it's not the setting or races we have come to love over the last 30 years and it is quite a different game (still good though). I understand GW strategy in pursuing AoS with regards to getting younger players, and yes it is easier to just set up a casual AoS game with new people than it is with 8th, people don't really care about balance the first matches.
So for the players like myself that liked 8th, would have love to see it continue in that direction just more balancing it is a real and credible reason to be pissed off at AoS because it is making harder to continue building existing and new armies to our system, and with the new CopyRight races underway it will be interesting to see if AoS really will kill off 8th. Because if the old races will go the way of the Chaos Dwarves then it will have essentially killed 8th and potentially 9th age.
And for the fluff, the WHFB old world fluff that they flushed down the drain, yes it still exist, they can't delete history. But it isn't ours, because GW has already sent cease and desist letters to the 9th Age developers for making a free non-profit real successor to 8th edition. So no we are not allowed to continue with our own system in WHFB, GW will sue you if you do. And if that is not a transgression that is evil, petty and corrupt against a company own fanbase then I don't know what is...
Gunman006 wrote: And for the fluff, the WHFB old world fluff that they flushed down the drain, yes it still exist, they can't delete history. But it isn't ours, because GW has already sent cease and desist letters to the 9th Age developers for making a free non-profit real successor to 8th edition. So no we are not allowed to continue with our own system in WHFB, GW will sue you if you do. And if that is not a transgression that is evil, petty and corrupt against a company own fanbase then I don't know what is...
Holy gak, I had no idea this had happened. That's like... a new low.
Sqorgar wrote: My guess is that the WHFB players were getting old. I'll bet the average player is in his 30s, or possibly even older. Saving the old guard without creating hooks for new, younger players to start playing wouldn't have increased the revenues for Fantasy for long. Once you've got kids, your disposable income drops significantly. The ideal age to target is teens and young adults, which I don't think a Tolkienesque fantasy setting appeals to anymore (especially after The Hobbit movies).
I'm curious where you got this idea that WHFB players are older. I can only speak for myself and my local area but we were older than the 40kers yes, but definitely not 30+ family and kids types.
Sqorgar wrote: And it's more of a trademark issue than a copyright one. Yeah, GW was pissed that Chapter House was making bits for their models (which they can't really do anything about, legally), but the real issue is that they were selling space marine pauldrons, which looked like space marine pauldrons, as "space marine pauldrons", which creates confusion in the marketplace because it looks and sounds official. With a more fortified trademark, they wouldn't be able to do that. They'd have to call it "pauldrons for you space guy", and they wouldn't be able to easily copy the pauldrons because the look of the space marines would be more unique and thus more protected. With Fantasy, they can't just rebrand the Aelfs and Duardin, they need to look physically unique - which is probably why the fantasy armies getting reboxes are the non-generic, non-human-looking figures.
They can't do anything about it legally because it wasn't illegal. There was not even evidence of people being confused and thinking CH was GW properly. GW were even asked if they had evidence of this and they had no repose. And, as the court case settled once and for all, no they would not have to state it as "pauldrons for space guy", it was decided that is is perfectly legal to advertise as compatible with GW models, just like it has been for after market bits in other industries for decades now.
Honestly, when it comes to the name changes in AoS I can't not attribute them to overzeleaous copyright protection just because of this one little offhand comment from Merrit in that trial about how they should have copywrited the whole 28mm scale when they had the chance. GW's head of IP (and IP protection) said that. That's frankly ed up.
They could have left whfb alive, for mail order only maybe if needed shelf space, release errata/ book/or sth and release Age of Sigmar alongside it. At least they wouldn't have to mix Tolkienesque races with mythological races (though they can overlap ofc) for silly effect like AoS. Also Helios and Ares, not space marines? Please. You can't tell me they created them out of mythological inspirations and not to to repeat space marines sales succes in fantasy. Any mythological bits are excuses not a creative spark.
I think it's bs that the Old World wouldn't apeal to teenagers. Few games on console like Verminide, Total War on pc and you will see. I know many guys who play only consoles but like whfb because they played Shadow of the Horned Rat as kids/ teens.
Also I don't understand your claims and questions. Yes some whfb players left, some stayed, who was alienated, how? You said it was before AoS, I don't get that either. There were books, model releases, white dwarf space, everything before AoS hit.
Yes it's not people complaining at everything GW does by default. It's people commenting on crap which is accidentaly what GW does all the time, probably because they don't give a crap anymore except for money and it shows.
Gunman006 wrote: And for the fluff, the WHFB old world fluff that they flushed down the drain, yes it still exist, they can't delete history. But it isn't ours, because GW has already sent cease and desist letters to the 9th Age developers for making a free non-profit real successor to 8th edition. So no we are not allowed to continue with our own system in WHFB, GW will sue you if you do. And if that is not a transgression that is evil, petty and corrupt against a company own fanbase then I don't know what is...
Holy gak, I had no idea this had happened. That's like... a new low.
Actually I believe they did the same to a Blood Bowl fansite, so it is simply hitting the same low once again.
The opposition to AoS as the successor of WHFB should be judged on the merits of it's arguments and not automatically invalided because there may or may not be an underlying hatred of GW. And vice versa.
That's fine, but I think AoS is such a fundamentally different game from WHFB that judging it as a successor will only lead to complaints about what AoS is not, and not what it is. And it will undoubtedly bring forth a lot of resentment that belongs as much on the doorstep of the fanbase as it objectively does with GW.
GW still makes the best models, or at least has the best quality/price in the quantity packages, not many other manufacturers even taking in http://unsupported-armies.blogspot.cz/ into account. if you want to build up a regiment of 20+ units GW is still the best way to go for price and comparative quality. As someone who is invested in 8th edition and potentially a future 9th Age player it will totally break the future prospects of this hobby for these systems if GW adopts a skirmish based unit package system for sale, and that is one of the things I fear with AoS being a skirmish game at core.
That's a GW complaint, not an AoS complaint. GW no longer produces the models of the type and format that you want them to.
As for AoS if you are fine with skirmish or prefer it then it's great. But if you want regiments and huge armies then it sucks compared to 8th. And yes KoW is a good alternative but like pointed out by others KoW is not a Heroic Fantasy Game, it's not the setting or races we have come to love over the last 30 years and it is quite a different game (still good though). I understand GW strategy in pursuing AoS with regards to getting younger players, and yes it is easier to just set up a casual AoS game with new people than it is with 8th, people don't really care about balance the first matches.
So, because AoS is fine, even great, it still sucks because it isn't a different game? Again, that doesn't sound like a complaint against AoS so much as it is a personal preference for something else. You also blame KoW for being a different game as well. Is it really King of War's fault that it doesn't have the Warhammer IP?
So for the players like myself that liked 8th, would have love to see it continue in that direction just more balancing it is a real and credible reason to be pissed off at AoS because it is making harder to continue building existing and new armies to our system, and with the new CopyRight races underway it will be interesting to see if AoS really will kill off 8th. Because if the old races will go the way of the Chaos Dwarves then it will have essentially killed 8th and potentially 9th age.
You may think you are pissed at AoS, but obviously, you are pissed at GW. And that's fine. I'm sure you have your reasons. But so far you have complained that AoS isn't WHFB, that AoS isn't WHFB, and that AoS isn't WHFB.
And for the fluff, the WHFB old world fluff that they flushed down the drain, yes it still exist, they can't delete history. But it isn't ours, because GW has already sent cease and desist letters to the 9th Age developers for making a free non-profit real successor to 8th edition. So no we are not allowed to continue with our own system in WHFB, GW will sue you if you do. And if that is not a transgression that is evil, petty and corrupt against a company own fanbase then I don't know what is...
How is it a transgression when that was OBVIOUSLY going to happen? It's not your own system. It is a highly derivative work of a company well known for litigating against IP infringement. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by this. And from what I can tell, the 9th Age team just changed some of the names and terms used in it, and it's still available and being played.
MOST of the complaints against AoS are complaints against Games Workshop, and I'd argue that we'd be seeing the exact same complaints - possibly from the exact same posters. Because nothing Games Workshop ever does is good enough, and some injustice in the past put them on people's dog house, and even if GW was just walking down the street, minding its own business, people would still find a reason that it was the most evil, corrupt piece of walking that has ever been walked. Because only toy companies walk like that.
I don't think Games Workshop did alienate WHFB players. I think they were already alienated. And the reason they are so upset isn't because of what GW did, so much as whatever GW didn't do. Whatever insane, half baked idea they have that is the One True Way to run a company that GW doesn't follow to the letter is some sort of personal insult. If only they'd done the thing I wanted them to do!
Seriously, I'm realizing now that it isn't about AoS. It never was. It's all just an excuse to sling gak at Games Workshop. And it doesn't matter which game was released, it still would've been a gak slinging excuse to the people who actively seek to hate and punish Games Workshop for whatever the hell transgression.
The opposition to AoS as the successor of WHFB should be judged on the merits of it's arguments
Quoting this bit as a reminder for AoS optimists worldwide.
The opposition to AoS as the successor of WHFB should be judged on the merits of it's arguments and not automatically invalided because there may or may not be an underlying hatred of GW. And vice versa.
That's fine, but I think AoS is such a fundamentally different game from WHFB that judging it as a successor will only lead to complaints about what AoS is not, and not what it is. And it will undoubtedly bring forth a lot of resentment that belongs as much on the doorstep of the fanbase as it objectively does with GW.
GW still makes the best models, or at least has the best quality/price in the quantity packages, not many other manufacturers even taking in http://unsupported-armies.blogspot.cz/ into account. if you want to build up a regiment of 20+ units GW is still the best way to go for price and comparative quality. As someone who is invested in 8th edition and potentially a future 9th Age player it will totally break the future prospects of this hobby for these systems if GW adopts a skirmish based unit package system for sale, and that is one of the things I fear with AoS being a skirmish game at core.
That's a GW complaint, not an AoS complaint. GW no longer produces the models of the type and format that you want them to.
As for AoS if you are fine with skirmish or prefer it then it's great. But if you want regiments and huge armies then it sucks compared to 8th. And yes KoW is a good alternative but like pointed out by others KoW is not a Heroic Fantasy Game, it's not the setting or races we have come to love over the last 30 years and it is quite a different game (still good though). I understand GW strategy in pursuing AoS with regards to getting younger players, and yes it is easier to just set up a casual AoS game with new people than it is with 8th, people don't really care about balance the first matches.
So, because AoS is fine, even great, it still sucks because it isn't a different game? Again, that doesn't sound like a complaint against AoS so much as it is a personal preference for something else. You also blame KoW for being a different game as well. Is it really King of War's fault that it doesn't have the Warhammer IP?
So for the players like myself that liked 8th, would have love to see it continue in that direction just more balancing it is a real and credible reason to be pissed off at AoS because it is making harder to continue building existing and new armies to our system, and with the new CopyRight races underway it will be interesting to see if AoS really will kill off 8th. Because if the old races will go the way of the Chaos Dwarves then it will have essentially killed 8th and potentially 9th age.
You may think you are pissed at AoS, but obviously, you are pissed at GW. And that's fine. I'm sure you have your reasons. But so far you have complained that AoS isn't WHFB, that AoS isn't WHFB, and that AoS isn't WHFB.
And for the fluff, the WHFB old world fluff that they flushed down the drain, yes it still exist, they can't delete history. But it isn't ours, because GW has already sent cease and desist letters to the 9th Age developers for making a free non-profit real successor to 8th edition. So no we are not allowed to continue with our own system in WHFB, GW will sue you if you do. And if that is not a transgression that is evil, petty and corrupt against a company own fanbase then I don't know what is...
How is it a transgression when that was OBVIOUSLY going to happen? It's not your own system. It is a highly derivative work of a company well known for litigating against IP infringement. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by this. And from what I can tell, the 9th Age team just changed some of the names and terms used in it, and it's still available and being played.
Sqorgar wrote: How is it a transgression when that was OBVIOUSLY going to happen? It's not your own system. It is a highly derivative work of a company well known for litigating against IP infringement. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by this. And from what I can tell, the 9th Age team just changed some of the names and terms used in it, and it's still available and being played.
I think you may be missing the point by just a few miles.
GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).
I'm curious where you got this idea that WHFB players are older. I can only speak for myself and my local area but we were older than the 40kers yes, but definitely not 30+ family and kids types.
There's been discussion about it elsewhere. For example, this BoLS article. In my personal experience, mini gamers are generally older as well. Most of the people in my Warmachine group have graying hair (myself included, what little I have left). And there's the fact that so many people like to remind you that when they bought a box of space marines in 1997, it was a buck fifty. Or hold grudges against things GW said 15 years ago.
I'd assume that if the audience was much younger on average, the online presence of the hobby would be much, much different. I hang around a lot of video game communities and the discussions are much different. It's like, "I just discovered this game called Shadow of the Colossus and it was awesome. You guys should play it."
They can't do anything about it legally because it wasn't illegal. There was not even evidence of people being confused and thinking CH was GW properly. GW were even asked if they had evidence of this and they had no repose. And, as the court case settled once and for all, no they would not have to state it as "pauldrons for space guy", it was decided that is is perfectly legal to advertise as compatible with GW models, just like it has been for after market bits in other industries for decades now.
It is legal to say that they are compatible with GW models, but it is not legal to use GW's trademarks directly. It was decided that GW's trademarks were not sufficiently unique enough to prevent people from using words like "space marine" or "lizardmen". So you could absolutely call something a space marine because there was a lot of prior art suggesting that GW didn't own the term - which is why GW now calls them Adeptus Astartes.
Honestly, when it comes to the name changes in AoS I can't not attribute them to overzeleaous copyright protection just because of this one little offhand comment from Merrit in that trial about how they should have copywrited the whole 28mm scale when they had the chance. GW's head of IP (and IP protection) said that. That's frankly ed up.
First off, since I've seen this mistake several times, it's "copyright". As in, the right to copy. To copywrite something is to write advertising materials for it.
Second, you can't copyright a something like that. Copyright is something that is bestowed automatically on a work, but only applies to that specific work and its derivatives. Basically, it is the legal rights to copy and distribute a work, as well as the rights to create derivative works from it (like an RPG version of Pretty Woman). Copyrights can be given to other entities, so you can give permission to someone to distribute copies of your work (usually in exchange for money). A trademark is a legally identifying aspect of your product to the market you sell it to. Trademarks have to be applied for and are limited in scope. For instance, you can create a window cleaning business called "Windows" but you can't make computer software named "Windows".
What this guy was likely talking about was patenting, and patenting is something where you can claim a particular innovation in a particular market as exclusively yours. And you can patent damn near anything. LEGO had a patent on how their bricks fit together. Someone has a patent for pepperoni and cheese pizza with an interior crust built in concentric circles. There is literally a patent on which way to hang your toilet paper. And when we get into the realm of software patents, well, the sky is the limit there. Capcom has a patent on expansion packs, created about twenty or thirty years after expansion packs were a thing.
So, if nobody else was doing 28mm miniatures, then GW could easily patent it. Hell, GW could patent miniatures in general, if the patent office was feeling particularly lazy that day, and it would be up to whomever sued them to show that it was unnecessarily broad and that there existed prior art. As you can tell, I kind of think patents are a bunch of crap, but unfortunately, that's kind of the third leg of intellectual property. At one point, it did a lot of good, but as technology progressed and the nature of innovation became muddled, they haven't really figured out what to do with patents. So I guess if GW could patent the 28mm scale, it would only benefit them to do so.
I'm not really sure there's all that much of a point arguing the nuances between a "direct AoS complaint", a "GW complaint" and a "successor to WHFB complaint".
AoS is fine for what it tries to be in and of itself, a skirmish game with an emphasis on saving trees when it came to writing rules. The game itself is brief enough that any analysis if it in a vacuum is also going to be brief.
However AoS is not going to be judged in a vacuum and I'm not sure why it should be judged in a vacuum.
Fact is, AoS is a fantasy skirmish game in a market with significant competitors in the fantasy skirmish department so it will be judged as such. It is a successor to WHFB and it will be judged as such because GW in either their wisdom or stupidity decided to kill WHFB and give us AoS. Of course it's going to be judged as such because that's what it is.
Sqorgar wrote: How is it a transgression when that was OBVIOUSLY going to happen? It's not your own system. It is a highly derivative work of a company well known for litigating against IP infringement. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by this. And from what I can tell, the 9th Age team just changed some of the names and terms used in it, and it's still available and being played.
I think you may be missing the point by just a few miles.
GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).
Sqorgar wrote: How is it a transgression when that was OBVIOUSLY going to happen? It's not your own system. It is a highly derivative work of a company well known for litigating against IP infringement. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by this. And from what I can tell, the 9th Age team just changed some of the names and terms used in it, and it's still available and being played.
I think you may be missing the point by just a few miles.
GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).
Of course. If GW doesn't vigorously defend trademarks (or copyrights, whatever it's not like they knew the difference in the Ch case either) they don't own then however will they prove they own such unique and creative concepts as grenade launchers and rounded shoulder plates!
Sqorgar wrote: How is it a transgression when that was OBVIOUSLY going to happen? It's not your own system. It is a highly derivative work of a company well known for litigating against IP infringement. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by this. And from what I can tell, the 9th Age team just changed some of the names and terms used in it, and it's still available and being played.
I think you may be missing the point by just a few miles.
GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).
Of course. If GW doesn't vigorously defend trademarks (or copyrights, whatever it's not like they knew the difference in the Ch case either) they don't own then however will they prove they own such unique and creative concepts as grenade launchers and rounded shoulder plates!
GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).
And GW isn't the only one that does it. Apple, Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, Sony, and so on. FFG, for example, sent a C&D to a netrunner fan site. PP sends C&Ds to sites the publish model stats. Mantic sent a C&D to a fan selling Dreadball summary cards (even stating that while they don't mind what he did, it could get them into a sticky legal situation later). Corvus Belli has sent C&Ds to fans creating terrain for Infinity. Ikea sent a C&D to a major fansite for using the trademarked "Ikea" name. Bethesda Software sent a C&D to the largest (and craziest) Fallout fan site.
What I'm saying is that this kind of gak happens all the time. It's not just GW that does it, yet for some reason, GW is held to some sort of standard that nobody else seems to be. When everybody else does it, it's annoying and frustrating, but it passes. When GW does it, a new twenty year grudge is born.
GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).
And GW isn't the only one that does it. Apple, Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, Sony, and so on. FFG, for example, sent a C&D to a netrunner fan site. PP sends C&Ds to sites the publish model stats. Mantic sent a C&D to a fan selling Dreadball summary cards (even stating that while they don't mind what he did, it could get them into a sticky legal situation later). Corvus Belli has sent C&Ds to fans creating terrain for Infinity. Ikea sent a C&D to a major fansite for using the trademarked "Ikea" name. Bethesda Software sent a C&D to the largest (and craziest) Fallout fan site.
What I'm saying is that this kind of gak happens all the time. It's not just GW that does it, yet for some reason, GW is held to some sort of standard that nobody else seems to be. When everybody else does it, it's annoying and frustrating, but it passes. When GW does it, a new twenty year grudge is born.
Translation:
"Murders happen all the time - why are you so mad at the guy for killing your brother?"
Trying to excuse a company by saying that others engage in the same behaviour is horrible, at best.
GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).
And GW isn't the only one that does it. Apple, Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, Sony, and so on. FFG, for example, sent a C&D to a netrunner fan site. PP sends C&Ds to sites the publish model stats. Mantic sent a C&D to a fan selling Dreadball summary cards (even stating that while they don't mind what he did, it could get them into a sticky legal situation later). Corvus Belli has sent C&Ds to fans creating terrain for Infinity. Ikea sent a C&D to a major fansite for using the trademarked "Ikea" name. Bethesda Software sent a C&D to the largest (and craziest) Fallout fan site.
What I'm saying is that this kind of gak happens all the time. It's not just GW that does it, yet for some reason, GW is held to some sort of standard that nobody else seems to be. When everybody else does it, it's annoying and frustrating, but it passes. When GW does it, a new twenty year grudge is born.
Translation:
"Murders happen all the time - why are you so mad at the guy for killing your brother?"
Trying to excuse a company by saying that others engage in the same behaviour is horrible, at best.
Spin away
Lol. I dunno about all those examples though, I was under the impression CB hired on people they found making terrain for infinity as official partners and actually promoted their stuff since it is a hole in the current market they aren't looking to fill (almost like shoulder pads for less popular marine chapters ).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'm not really sure there's all that much of a point arguing the nuances between a "direct AoS complaint", a "GW complaint" and a "successor to WHFB complaint"
I think it is important for the people who hold a grudge against AoS to know where their true frustration lies.
I think the worst thing you can say about AoS, as a game, is that it isn't for you and that you'd rather play something else. But as a GW product, it is a soulless cash grab that cynically manipulates people into buying overpriced models. And as a successor to WHFB, it is a slap in the face to long term fans - a ruthless buggering of everything they've ever held dear and an obstacle to their one true happiness.
And that's all fine. It becomes problematic when people say AoS, as a game, is a ruthless buggering of everything they've ever held dear. I mean, it's just a game. It can't hurt you.
Gunman006 wrote: But it isn't ours, because GW has already sent cease and desist letters to the 9th Age developers for making a free non-profit real successor to 8th edition. So no we are not allowed to continue with our own system in WHFB, GW will sue you if you do. And if that is not a transgression that is evil, petty and corrupt against a company own fanbase then I don't know what is...
Can you share a source for this? No mention of it on the 9th age site and Google isn't turning anything else up either.
jonolikespie wrote: Lol. I dunno about all those examples though, I was under the impression CB hired on people they found making terrain for infinity as official partners and actually promoted their stuff since it is a hole in the current market they aren't looking to fill (almost like shoulder pads for less popular marine chapters ).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'm not really sure there's all that much of a point arguing the nuances between a "direct AoS complaint", a "GW complaint" and a "successor to WHFB complaint"
I think it is important for the people who hold a grudge against AoS to know where their true frustration lies.
I think the worst thing you can say about AoS, as a game, is that it isn't for you and that you'd rather play something else. But as a GW product, it is a soulless cash grab that cynically manipulates people into buying overpriced models. And as a successor to WHFB, it is a slap in the face to long term fans - a ruthless buggering of everything they've ever held dear and an obstacle to their one true happiness.
And that's all fine. It becomes problematic when people say AoS, as a game, is a ruthless buggering of everything they've ever held dear. I mean, it's just a game. It can't hurt you.
Judging AoS in a vacuum, I'd still say it's a mediocre game. It's decent for what it is... which is a game with it's core rules covered in a free 4 page document... but it has more holes than swiss cheese. It's like saying "He's decent for a 3rd grader", it's not actually saying all that much
Mediocre games can still be fun, hell, even BAD wargames can be fun if you approach them with the right attitude, but ideally we want GOOD wargames, especially when they are huge investments of time and money (a cheap off the shelf board game tends to be judged less harshly than a game that typically uses hundreds of dollars of miniatures with hundreds of hours of preparation time).
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I'm not really sure there's all that much of a point arguing the nuances between a "direct AoS complaint", a "GW complaint" and a "successor to WHFB complaint"
I think it is important for the people who hold a grudge against AoS to know where their true frustration lies.
I think the worst thing you can say about AoS, as a game, is that it isn't for you and that you'd rather play something else. But as a GW product, it is a soulless cash grab that cynically manipulates people into buying overpriced models. And as a successor to WHFB, it is a slap in the face to long term fans - a ruthless buggering of everything they've ever held dear and an obstacle to their one true happiness.
And that's all fine. It becomes problematic when people say AoS, as a game, is a ruthless buggering of everything they've ever held dear. I mean, it's just a game. It can't hurt you.
wait, are we talking about true frustration?!! I'm pretty sure I have a good idea of where my frustration for AoS lies, as a fully functioning human with the powers of reason.
Plumbumbarum wrote: If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.
That's an interesting point. While you can say the volume of griping is due to GW's existing base of disgruntled customers.... I'd say the vast majority of the of it's popularity also comes from GW's huge existing customer base.
when I said I think it's a mediocre game, I think any success it currently has is riding off both the existing WHFB range and also the existing GW customers who are all too happy to have a new flavour of Spehss Mareenz to play with.
I don't think "no one" would play it. It has (subjectively) nice models and I'm sure that would carry it to an extent, but if we were viewing AoS in a vacuum, ignoring it's predecessor in WHFB and ignoring GW in general, it's a mediocre game that would struggle to gain traction with other good loose formation skirmish games around.
Plumbumbarum wrote: If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.
There's no way to know for sure, but I think it is fair to say that the people who didn't like that style of gaming wouldn't have felt quite as obligated to share their opinion on it, at length, every day, for months.
Plumbumbarum wrote: If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.
There's no way to know for sure, but I think it is fair to say that the people who didn't like that style of gaming wouldn't have felt quite as obligated to share their opinion on it, at length, every day, for months.
...because their game of choice would still be supported, yes
Plumbumbarum wrote: If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.
There's no way to know for sure, but I think it is fair to say that the people who didn't like that style of gaming wouldn't have felt quite as obligated to share their opinion on it, at length, every day, for months.
I think it is fair to say that the people who did like that style of gaming wouldn't have felt quite as obligated to share their opinion on it, at length, every day, for months.... because they probably wouldn't be playing it in the first place.
Plumbumbarum wrote: If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.
There's no way to know for sure, but I think it is fair to say that the people who didn't like that style of gaming wouldn't have felt quite as obligated to share their opinion on it, at length, every day, for months.
This was a thread that was written from the get-go to explain to people who don't like AoS or see some potential issues with it that they just aren't seeing it correctly because they aren't game designers and just didn't "get it."
Next, people who do think AoS could use some work or is unplayable, AND feel like they had tried to play it, disagreed with the initial premise and posted counter arguments.
Like, that's the thread and discussion. I don't agree with Matts' views, and I don't agree with your views, so we all share our thoughts and maybe peoples minds are changed, or they get mad, or they fight.
It's kinda what we do on the internet, argue about minutia.
Plumbumbarum wrote: If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.
There's no way to know for sure, but I think it is fair to say that the people who didn't like that style of gaming wouldn't have felt quite as obligated to share their opinion on it, at length, every day, for months.
Have you read the OP? Because at some point before this thread there was very little bashing of AoS, if any. Everything that is in the OP was discussed to hell and back and calling people on voicing their opinion after being directly baited is really perplexing for me, it's just like you don't understand basic action reaction mechanisms or forgot what the thread is about.
Nice MObtw:
Troll OP post
Attack people who took the bait
Attack mods for not warning people who took the bait
Pretend it's a standard behaviour of said people and whine endlessly about it
Though yes obviously GW fail will be more commented than some obscure kickstarter fail. The bigger you are the more your blunders are visible. And funny if your big and arogant.
Judging AoS in a vacuum, I'd still say it's a mediocre game. It's decent for what it is... which is a game with it's core rules covered in a free 4 page document... but it has more holes than swiss cheese. It's like saying "He's decent for a 3rd grader", it's not actually saying all that much
Mediocre games can still be fun, hell, even BAD wargames can be fun if you approach them with the right attitude, but ideally we want GOOD wargames, especially when they are huge investments of time and money (a cheap off the shelf board game tends to be judged less harshly than a game that typically uses hundreds of dollars of miniatures with hundreds of hours of preparation time).
This is basically what I have been feeling about AoS, I enjoy playing it, but it is absolutely awful as a game. As for the fluff, well IMO it is absolutely trash....as a follow on to warhammer, if it did not have warhammer's history and was just new as it is, well I still don't like it and that would have made me avoid the game altogether. I only gave it the initial try because I play all of GW's other games and I was very excited about it coming out, until I saw it...at first I thought it was just a joke, they were messing with us.....then I realized these guys are serious..out of all the complaints I have ever heard about warhammer, the setting and fluff where never part of it. Vermintide and the new dreadfleet video games are still set in the old world after all.
This was not my intent (and I did actually see what you had written before you edited your post - thank you for changing it, as I do think you had mis-characterised me a little unfairly), and I would point out that the second line of my first post says that AoS is not going to be for everyone.
The point of the OP was simply this: I saw a lot of things being said about AoS that I did not feel were true and if they were genuine reasons for keeping people away from the game, then it might be worth another look.
If, on the other hand, someone is turned off by multiple realms, streamlined rules and big armoured immortals... then there really is no argument. As I said originally, plenty of other games out there.
However, a few posts in this thread, plus a few games here, have got me thinking and I believe I have twigged why AoS hits the spot for me.
When I play 8e or 40k (and I still play both), the rules are always in mind. I am playing a game and the rules are followed/manipulated in an effort to win. In AoS, I have found that does not happen - the rules effectively become invisible, as we concentrate on whether Threx Skullbrand is going to recover the fallen Lord Khul, or if the Stormcasts will beat him back and force him to hide from his Lord's wrath (as it turned out, that is just what happened, and it did not end well for him, but I digress...).
In effect, we are concentrating on what is going on rather than how it happens - and I have seen this before, in RPGs. RPGs are all about the immersion (well, that is one take on it - character development, both in character and rules-wise, is obviously a thing), and a rules system is working well if it begins to 'disappear' during play.
I have noticed the same thing about AoS. It serves as a vehicle for mighty Warhammer heroes to stalk battlefields and, well, hit each other in the face.
Anyway, just an observation, and it really is just my take on the game and why I personally like it. As always, your mileage is going to vary enormously...
Ok maybe not an exclusively troll post, but I guess you can see how it can come off as a troll post especialy that you knew exactly how it's is going to end. After all the blood and tears, when everybody kind of calmed down it surely looked like stiring a pot back, and on all fronts simultanously. I have to admit I admired it a bit, the size of it, the range, the elaborate provocation, see I'm a troll myself and can appreciate a result of 20 pages of fighting. So no offence man, in my mouth troll is not an insult heh, what I really hate is petty discusion techniques and bs fallacies in ensuing discussion tbh.
Also can you pm me about the "mischaracterisation"? I think there's a misunderstanding, I didn't reffer to you outside of calling your post a troll one and anything that could be attributed to you was accidental. I'm really curious what it was, have my guess ofc but not sure.
tsk tsk
ed up.
