i will legit not move past 7th. as someone who generally dislikes when people refuse to move beyond one edition or another i straight up would not play it if it's anything like AoS.
The FLGS i work for is having me demo the game on monday and of the few i've already played, it's awful. i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
removal of EVERY magic discipline is bonkers. the game has about 2 general spells now not counting "warscroll specific" spells.
the only good to come from this is that all the rules and army info is free.
mondo80 wrote: I do see a few advantages to the new system that might work well with 40k.
What are those advantages? Being so obviously terrible that nobody will ever play the game, and therefore the problem of not being able to afford to keep up with new rulebook releases will be solved? AoS is so unbelievably bad that the best thing GW can do is commit honorable suicide to cleanse the shame of publishing it, and never speak of the abomination again.
die toten hosen wrote: . i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
The rules for 40k do need a re-write. However there is actually a happy medium between 200+ pages of over complicated gak, and 4 pages of vapid and vague general idea of a game.
But they require the rules writers to communicate with the players in a meaningful way.And be free to write the rules for game play not short term sales.
Unfortunately that rules GW plc out...
Ideally the new 40k BATTLE GAME rules would be based on the resolution methods and game mechanics of good battle games.And come in at about 40 pages .
Core rules cover everything in a straight forward way, except special rules which cover actual special abilities.(Not just make up the short fall of the core rules on a regular basis.)
If the new game used direct representation of the stat values and compared opposed stat values for 2 resolution methods .Instead of the SEVEN 40k currently uses.
This would go a long way to streamline the rules , with out removing complexity from the interaction.
die toten hosen wrote: . i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?
You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.
die toten hosen wrote: . i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?
You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.
die toten hosen wrote: . i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?
You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.
Games not out and its already broken? lol
the game is out all the rules can be downloaded.
Although I wouldn't call some of the stuff rules. Units getting buffed depending on your age or your opponent age. You need to keep stuff in your hand to use some abilities or have a beard, which clearly goes against female players. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a system that bad.
Please, God, no. Keep that abomination confined to the realm of fantasy.
Free rules is a smart move, though. I'd love see GW distributing free to download formation datasheets in the near future to push model sales or bolster outclassed armies (which usually lag behind in terms of sales, so it's really another side of the same coin). But if anything else spills to 40k, I'm out. Word.
I haven't been able to stomach reading through all of the AoS stuff yet, but from the bits and pieces I have read it's a classic GW case of "a few interesting ideas completely wasted by abysmal execution".
For example, shooting and melee now use the same mechanics, based on the number of attacks you have, just using a different weapon - interesting.
If I'm reading it right, each model gets to chose it's own target, meaning a unit can fire at multiple targets; something that fluffwise would make great sense in 40k, but potentially leads to a very slow, complicated game - mixed.
No recognisable system of game balance known to mankind - ???!!!
Outside the lack of points, I'd try it. At least it happened to Fantasy first - if GW is smart, it'll get the feedback and apply a better version to 40k, as updating fantasy again
Mr Morden wrote: If you have been previously or are now allowing Fateweaver to change the resuts of dice rolls to any number in mathematics thats a bit sad.
No, it's entirely in line with everything else in AoS. If you can get bonuses for talking to your model or dancing while you roll your dice then why shouldn't you be able to roll a 7 on a D6? If anyone whines about RAW with Fateweaver then the proper thing to do is direct them to every other stupid rule and tell them to STFU.
Thats obviously entirely incorrect and false as some people will play the game.
So the best response you have to offer is to nitpick over whether "nobody will play it" is literally true? Obviously a few people will play AoS, but hardly any of them will play it more than once or twice. And their numbers will be tiny compared to the number of people who will quit playing GW fantasy games entirely or keep playing previous versions of WHFB. And the same thing would happen if GW did a 40k version of AoS: virtually everyone would either quit playing or go back to an older version of the game.
I'm sure they are. The problem is that you've got tons of ex players who hopefully looked at the AoS PDFs in the vain hope of a return if done kind of quality. GW is starting to exhibit the levels of madness only seen in the final days of Roman emperors, Westerosi kings, or TSR.
die toten hosen wrote: . i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?
You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.
Games not out and its already broken? lol
the game is out all the rules can be downloaded.
Although I wouldn't call some of the stuff rules. Units getting buffed depending on your age or your opponent age. You need to keep stuff in your hand to use some abilities or have a beard, which clearly goes against female players. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a system that bad.
Where can I find these things, I need to read it black on white in order to believe.
As I mentioned in the News thread, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see 40K redone with almost identical rules to AoS, so that the two games can be played interchangeably... essentially 'combining' them in a similar way to Warmachine/Hordes, but with the ability to use 40K and AoS minis in the same army.
I don't think the fact that 40K sells better than WHFB did will save it, because I don't think that this shift is about current sales. It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.
I wonder what kind of a people they want to make pick up the game. It can't be the warmahordes or other skirmish games players. The starter armies cost a lot compering to other games, even if they take just the minimum sized units in the formations.
I don't know who is suppose to play the game. If someone just wants to have some laughs, it easier to play a draft or buy a starter of malifaux or infinity. I hope GW has good buissness advisors.
Guys, it's... it's a game where having a large enough moustache gives you combat bonuses. If you're complaining about the rules being silly, I think you've missed the point.
insaniak wrote: It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.
If they did that it would be a huge improvement. But sadly AoS has nothing to do with MTG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote: Guys, it's... it's a game where having a large enough moustache gives you combat bonuses. If you're complaining about the rules being silly, I think you've missed the point.
No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.
insaniak wrote: It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.
If they did that it would be a huge improvement. But sadly AoS has nothing to do with MTG.
I wasn't talking about the quality of the rules or gameplay, just the basic structure of the setting up an army, which is far more like a CCG than a 'normal' wargame.
insaniak wrote: I wasn't talking about the quality of the rules or gameplay, just the basic structure of the setting up an army, which is far more like a CCG than a 'normal' wargame.
But I don't see how it's like a CCG in any way that normal wargames aren't. You're still doing the same wargame-style "choose an army and put it on the table" setup, you're just doing it with "take as much as you want" instead of a fixed point limit or historical scenario.
I don't think the fact that 40K sells better than WHFB did will save it, because I don't think that this shift is about current sales. It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.
Oh god.
I'm beginning to suspect that GW fired all of the writers that actually played 40k/WHFB, and then hired a bunch of boardgame/fiction writers to make these rules.
Slayer le boucher wrote: The one thing i find Good in the AoS rules, are with the Monsters models Wounds counts.
If the Monster is unarmed or has only lost 3 wounds, it fight as normal, when he is more wounded, he gets weaker.
He move a few inches slower, has 1 attack less on his profil per wound tier and if he cast spells, he can cast less and less spells.
This mechanic is ironicly a good balancing one for Monstruous creatures.
Something similar for 40k could balance out things like Wraithknights.
Yeah I agree it's a pretty cool feature.
Because Warhammer: Assault on Sanity is so incompatible with pick up games, im incredibly skeptical that it will survive past it's initial new shiny honeymoon. Fantasy sales may drop even further than before making me think the same treatment to 40k would be unlikely. As much as I ridicule 40k for having what IMO is a very similar dysfunction, the system is still going strong the way it is (for now anyway).
die toten hosen wrote: . i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?
You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.
Games not out and its already broken? lol
the game is out all the rules can be downloaded.
Although I wouldn't call some of the stuff rules. Units getting buffed depending on your age or your opponent age. You need to keep stuff in your hand to use some abilities or have a beard, which clearly goes against female players. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a system that bad.
Please tell me you're kidding. (Or tell me where an example is, can't wait to show it to some friends, they'll laugh their asses off)
Jimsolo wrote: Long beards and thanes in the dwarf warscroll. The Masque in the daemons one. It's no joke.
That's... depressing and hilarious in a bad way. I can see they truly game up any notion of comp play, and tried to go full garage only play. If anything like this happens to 40k, I wouldn't be surprised to see GW fold pretty quickly
die toten hosen wrote: . i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?
You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.
Games not out and its already broken? lol
the game is out all the rules can be downloaded.
Although I wouldn't call some of the stuff rules. Units getting buffed depending on your age or your opponent age. You need to keep stuff in your hand to use some abilities or have a beard, which clearly goes against female players. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a system that bad.
Please tell me you're kidding. (Or tell me where an example is, can't wait to show it to some friends, they'll laugh their asses off)
They're messing with you. There's no way to get a 13 on 2D6 and the rule even says that if you get that result you're a cheater. Fateweaver doesn't let you choose a 7 or more on a D6. The only way to get a 13+ is by cheating! (I know it says roll "dice" rather than "6 sided dice" but the intention is D6s.)
The problem with both systems is the scope more than anything. The games are simply too large, cost too much, and take too long to play. New players need to be able to into the store with the same amount they would go into a video game store and be able to walk out with a product. It doesn't have to be a 'complete' game. Just something they could get started with.
Move the main rulebook and the limited fiction it has to the website as well as some scaled back scenarios that players could enjoy at a very low points cost. These scenarios would then be paired well with the battleforce boxes. The goal should be for players to come into a store, read the back of a battleforce box to get the general idea behind an army, buy it, and go home and play a game or 2 with the online rules. All for the low low price of $75.
If players could get some first hand exposure to the game at about the same price a video game sells for you'd probably find people more agreeable to playing the game. They could then come back in, buy the army specific books that aren't free online, as well as a supporting unit or 3 and play the game at a COMPETITIVE and BALANCED level at a much lower point range (1000 should be the goal for a tournament).
But that's the trick... coming up with competitive and balanced rules that are scalable at both the battleforce and tournament point levels as opposed to the 2000pt and $1000+ investment level we're at now. But this has been my complaint for nealry 20 years now. The rules aren't balanced internally or between armies, and no one has 3 hours to set aside to play a single game at 2k points. I remember some 5 hour long games way back in the day! The game needs tournament friendly rules where 2 players can get a match where both sides feel like the way they played won the game as opposed to the way they built their list, at a 1 hour or less time frame. I know they want to be a model company first, but if they made good rules at a price point people could afford they'd have more players which would mean more sales. As opposed to their current system where the only way to sell models is come out with something new with such large amounts of power creep your existing customers have no choice but to buy them.
Now as to Age of Sigmar, I haven't played it and probably won't. I simply don't like fantasy games that much. From the few I know who played it, aside from the childish subtext and strange approach to some rules, people seem genuinely impressed with it but most don't think it'll have lasting appeal.
I do feel it is legitimate to be concerned about what effect WH-AOS may have on 40k. GW is making it clear what sort of game they have in mind- one where the experience is so random and unable to be balanced that people will (in GW's minds at least) throw their arms up and say the equivalent of "who cares about having a competitive experience! I just want to put miniatures down and make pew pew noises."
The most recent releases for 40k seem to be functioning to imbalance the game even further and I don't see that abating. The main difference with 40k will be that the rules will keep costing a lot of money, because people buy the 40k rule books no matter what, it seems.
I think that this AOS business is going to cause me to significantly shrink my two remaining army projects, as I'd rather not get caught loaded up with a couple of big armies whenever 8th edition rolls around.
At worst, even if GW is so wrong-headed as to take this approach for 40K, people will stick to playing 7th. You will probably see a fan-created living rulebook approach. The game itself will wind up better than ever, though the player base will shrink a little.
die toten hosen wrote: . i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?
You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.
Games not out and its already broken? lol
the game is out all the rules can be downloaded.
Although I wouldn't call some of the stuff rules. Units getting buffed depending on your age or your opponent age. You need to keep stuff in your hand to use some abilities or have a beard, which clearly goes against female players. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a system that bad.
Please tell me you're kidding. (Or tell me where an example is, can't wait to show it to some friends, they'll laugh their asses off)
They're messing with you. There's no way to get a 13 on 2D6 and the rule even says that if you get that result you're a cheater. Fateweaver doesn't let you choose a 7 or more on a D6. The only way to get a 13+ is by cheating! (I know it says roll "dice" rather than "6 sided dice" but the intention is D6s.)
I was more talking about the beards, or mustache thing (and RAW, you CAN choose any number by fateweaver's rule, and obviously RAI would be a D6. But it brings up the question of what happens if you get a 7 on a D6 roll? Game crashes I suppose? Either way, love all the new shoddy rules by GW, always something dumb to make me laugh.)
Although I wouldn't call some of the stuff rules. Units getting buffed depending on your age or your opponent age. You need to keep stuff in your hand to use some abilities or have a beard, which clearly goes against female players. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a system that bad.
Doesn't have to be a real beard though... But frankly, if you're pushing the system for every possible advantage, you're doing it wrong. This is beer and pretzels 101. It's a middle finger to the over serious tournament players, and instead a less than serious, over the top and slightly ridiculous way to spend time with good friends and have a laugh.
I think those rules are like rules from a drinking game. A blast amongst friends, but kinda weird when you try and involve strangers.
I think most people will take those "special" rules as a given without having to do the dumb stuff.
also, the fateweaver rule lets you choose the result of the roll. there is a result for 13 on the screaming bell, you don't have to pretend that you have rolled a 7 on 1d6, you have just chosen which result you like as per the rule
Wyldhunt wrote: Guys, it's... it's a game where having a large enough moustache gives you combat bonuses. If you're complaining about the rules being silly, I think you've missed the point.
SAGA does this too, and its one of the best games I've ever played. AoS isn't gak because of the weird rules, its gak because nopoints
die toten hosen wrote: . i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?
You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.
You can play it as a pickup game and AoS will become a specialist game as other games GW has developed.
That's the problem: you can't. AoS is wholly unplayable as a pickup game. Pickup games in 40k and WHFB are possible because they follow the same outline: points cost. You settle on a point limit and everyone builds his list accordingly. AoS, however...well...do you waltz into a store and throw all your stuff at the table? It's impossible to get a proper, even-leveled pickup game.
How about the rules having to actually dance or talk to your figures or avoid looking opponent in the eye as actual real rule mechanics ....it's so bizarre . I have no idea how the execs at GW thought this was in anyway a good idea.
It's like they are making fun of the game and themselves . So bizarre ....
Makumba wrote:
Although I wouldn't call some of the stuff rules. Units getting buffed depending on your age or your opponent age. You need to keep stuff in your hand to use some abilities or have a beard, which clearly goes against female players. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a system that bad.
The other week I was lambasted by a mod on this board because I called the games designers of GW "incompetent".
"Circling High Above: When first set up,
units of Carrion are assumed to be flying
high above the battlefield. As long as they
remain high in the sky, they cannot be
charged, attacked, targeted by spells or
affected by abilities used by either side,
and they also cannot make any attacks
themselves as they soar far above their
foes. Enemy units ignore the Carrion as
they move (they move underneath them)."
Make this your only unit, choose the Endure Sudden Death rule.
No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.
Unless you're a person who is either very young, just starting the miniatures hobby, or in general a person who wants a really simple game that is not even intended to be serious. Which is to whom the game is directed at.
Why pick such a target audience, I don't know. But it has been discussed in another thread that basically even this is better for GW as a company than WHFB was, as it was generating only 15% of their sales. The target audience of this game is broader than that of Warhammer 40,000 - that is an undeniable fact.
Unless you're a person who is either very young, just starting the miniatures hobby, or in general a person who wants a really simple game that is not even intended to be serious. Which is to whom the game is directed at.
Where is this mystical gamer who wants a rock-stupid beer and pretzels game, for which he needs to purchase hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of miniatures for?
A far better business plan might be, I don't know, FIX Warhammer Fantasy? Make a quality product people actually want to play, rather than this insulting swill that even the PROPONENTS of admit is a giant middle finger to their customer base? That seems way smarter.
Unless you're a person who is either very young, just starting the miniatures hobby, or in general a person who wants a really simple game that is not even intended to be serious. Which is to whom the game is directed at.
Where is this mystical gamer who wants a rock-stupid beer and pretzels game, for which he needs to purchase hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of miniatures for?
A far better business plan might be, I don't know, FIX Warhammer Fantasy? Make a quality product people actually want to play, rather than this insulting swill that even the PROPONENTS of admit is a giant middle finger to their customer base? That seems way smarter.
The pessimist in me says that GW's mindset is "Fething nerds. Just by the plastic and shut up".
No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.
Unless you're a person who is either very young, just starting the miniatures hobby, or in general a person who wants a really simple game that is not even intended to be serious. Which is to whom the game is directed at.
Why pick such a target audience, I don't know. But it has been discussed in another thread that basically even this is better for GW as a company than WHFB was, as it was generating only 15% of their sales. The target audience of this game is broader than that of Warhammer 40,000 - that is an undeniable fact.
Not an undeniable fact.
Aimed at kids? Yes.
But you know what kids (especially boys) want? They want grown up stuff. That's why there are so few YA books for boys, because boys generally go straight to the adult stuff. That's how I got into wargaming. I saw the cool artwork and minis in RT and thought it was super cool and grown up.
GW, without market research, is aiming at a demographic without understanding it.
Can it be fun and light hearted? Sure. But the target audience being braoder? I don't believe it. It's not a board game so board game people won't want to assemble little dudes for hours. Serious wargammers want something with more depth and tactics.
It's kind of a middle ground that I don't think has a huge base. It's new, shiny and so has a lot of interest. But once the shine wears off, there's not much to keep people there.
"Fact" is a strong word and you're using it wrong.
Runic wrote: Unless you're a person who is either very young, just starting the miniatures hobby, or in general a person who wants a really simple game that is not even intended to be serious. Which is to whom the game is directed at.
Very young people rarely have the budget for a game like this, and the vast majority of people who want silly "beer and pretzels" games want cheap "beer and pretzels" games. For example, Munchkin is simple and silly and great for laughing at the absurdity of the gaming hobby. It also costs $20, and can be played right out of the box without any assembly or painting or negotiating what forces everyone will bring. GW, on the other hand, is charging as much money as serious wargames for a pile of garbage that makes Munchkin look like a high-level tournament game.
But it has been discussed in another thread that basically even this is better for GW as a company than WHFB was, as it was generating only 15% of their sales.
And AoS is likely to generate even less. People will buy the models to use for non-AoS purposes, but I'd be very surprised if AoS even matches WHFB's player count.
The target audience of this game is broader than that of Warhammer 40,000 - that is an undeniable fact.
You must have a strange definition of "undeniable" since there's a very obvious denial available: the fact that GW has published a game that doesn't appeal to gamers. Serious players don't want such a hilariously terrible game, and the people who might be interested in a quick "screw around while drinking" game don't want to pay GW's prices to play it. So what exactly is this broad target audience you have in mind? Parents of young children who just happen to also be millionaires? What will be next, units that get bonuses if you're playing on your private jet? A random table for resolving what happens when turbulence bumps the models around?
Peregrine wrote: What will be next, units that get bonuses if you're playing on your private jet? A random table for resolving what happens when turbulence bumps the models around?
die toten hosen wrote: . i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?
You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.
Games not out and its already broken? lol
Roll 2 add the results... sorry i wasnt clear apparently
Selym wrote: +1 to all dice rolls if daddy runs the country.
Now there's a great idea. Maybe one of the leader-type heroes could have a special rule where they automatically get to move/shoot/assault first if your parents have a higher government position or military rank than your opponent. Or instead of rolling dice you could inflict a wound for each $100 bill you light on fire. You could even fix the absence of point costs by tying army construction to each player's investments, so if the market goes down while you're playing a game some of your models might switch over to your opponent's control (representing mercenaries being upset about not getting paid).
e.earnshaw wrote: If 40k turns into age of sigmar stile rules i will quit or carry on in severnth.
Join me in 7th brothar.
If the community as a whole just sticks to 7th, and somewhat reduces their purchases from GW after 40k:AoS, they'll probably come around.
Personally, when I hear 8E 40k is on it's way, I will stock up on some units to tide me over for a good while, and then cease purchases until the next edition.
What will be next, units that get bonuses if you're playing on your private jet?
don't be silly. GW doesn't own a aviation firm thus they have no desire to encounrage you to spend your money on a private jet when you could buy the Ultramarines Chapter instead
Wulfmar wrote: I was left in 6th edition after refusing to change to 7th after only owning the BRB for 6-7 months.
How soon do you guys reckon it will be until 8th comes out?
My money (well, not my money, as I'm pretty much done with giving GW money) is on next June. It would follow the 2 year 6th to 7th jump, and would be a full year after Age of Sigmar insanity.
BrianDavion wrote: don't be silly. GW doesn't own a aviation firm thus they have no desire to encounrage you to spend your money on a private jet when you could buy the Ultramarines Chapter instead
Next week: pre-order your Citadel™ FinePlane™, with built-in Citadel™ Realm™ of™ Skulls™ Hobby™ Table™, the perfect way to enjoy all of your favorite Games™ Workshop™ Products™. Reports of major structural problems will be dismissed as "otiose", because Citadel™ FinePlanes™ are built using the best components in the industry.
I got told by my FLGS that his GW rep said that "GW cannot afford to have AoS fail" and reading through what is in there - it will!
What is the Endure Sudden Death rule?
Maybe in 8th edition there will be a telephone number you can ring to pay a small fee to have a GW representative inform your opponent that you have 'officially' won the game?
Jimsolo wrote: Long beards and thanes in the dwarf warscroll. The Masque in the daemons one. It's no joke.
Sigvald's is at least entertaining. Look in a mirror for rerolls, if the reroll is 1 you become enamored by your reflection and he does nothing that phase.
Runic wrote: Unless you're a person who is either very young, just starting the miniatures hobby, or in general a person who wants a really simple game that is not even intended to be serious. Which is to whom the game is directed at.
Very young people rarely have the budget for a game like this, and the vast majority of people who want silly "beer and pretzels" games want cheap "beer and pretzels" games. For example, Munchkin is simple and silly and great for laughing at the absurdity of the gaming hobby. It also costs $20, and can be played right out of the box without any assembly or painting or negotiating what forces everyone will bring. GW, on the other hand, is charging as much money as serious wargames for a pile of garbage that makes Munchkin look like a high-level tournament game.
But it has been discussed in another thread that basically even this is better for GW as a company than WHFB was, as it was generating only 15% of their sales.
And AoS is likely to generate even less. People will buy the models to use for non-AoS purposes, but I'd be very surprised if AoS even matches WHFB's player count.
The target audience of this game is broader than that of Warhammer 40,000 - that is an undeniable fact.
You must have a strange definition of "undeniable" since there's a very obvious denial available: the fact that GW has published a game that doesn't appeal to gamers. Serious players don't want such a hilariously terrible game, and the people who might be interested in a quick "screw around while drinking" game don't want to pay GW's prices to play it. So what exactly is this broad target audience you have in mind? Parents of young children who just happen to also be millionaires? What will be next, units that get bonuses if you're playing on your private jet? A random table for resolving what happens when turbulence bumps the models around?
There's no evidence of people wanting a non-serious game not being willing to pay 100 euros or equiv for it. Many good boardgames can cost that much actually, without them being a competitive wargame or anything near it. Next to that, to new players or new wargamers AoS could seem way more complicated than playing Uno, even if it looks simple and stupid to veterans and wargamers who are used to the more complicated games. All you're going on is basically what is being said on this forum. A forum consisting mostly of wargamers. The target audience of AoS is larger than that of WH40K, whether you accept it or not.
If it lures said audience or is successfull is another thing entirely, I have a vibe it won't. In essence, you can aim at a target the size of a mountain. Missing it doesn't change it being the target, and it being broader than an angry veteran wargaming nerd at it's root. GW has stated this themselves, they are aiming to lure new wargamers into the hobby. There are more non-wargamers on this planet than there are wargamers, the target audience is therefore broader than that of a game that has one of he highest entry costs out of any game, and some of the most complicated rules in existence, period.
Runic, fun & silly games, while they can be good, and while some people /do/ spend more than £20//$20, they're more of an impulse buy.
i.e "That looks like a laugh, hey guys, let's do that one evening!"
*two games later*
"Eh, the novelty's worn off now, but it was a blast! Maybe we'll dig this out of storage in a couple of years when we're drunk."
Wargaming on the scale of WHFB or 40k looks a lot more like a 150 step guide into selling your soul to Satan for a fictional universe.
"So that big tank will win me games, yeah? It costs HOW MUCH!? £85. Erm... Well, what about that £20 box of troops? And that'll take me how many hours to prepare?"
Selym wrote: Runic, fun & silly games, while they can be good, and while some people /do/ spend more than £20//$20, they're more of an impulse buy.
i.e "That looks like a laugh, hey guys, let's do that one evening!"
*two games later*
"Eh, the novelty's worn off now, but it was a blast! Maybe we'll dig this out of storage in a couple of years when we're drunk."
Wargaming on the scale of WHFB or 40k looks a lot more like a 150 step guide into selling your soul to Satan for a fictional universe.
"So that big tank will win me games, yeah? It costs HOW MUCH!? £85. Erm... Well, what about that £20 box of troops? And that'll take me how many hours to prepare?"
Yeah, ofcourse.
I'm not talking about if GW's target audience makes any sense when you factor in the cost. It is irrelevant to the fact the games target audience is broader even if it turns out to be a failure. You decide a products target audience before you publish it most of the time.
Then again, I have a feeling that AoS Serious Edition is on it's way.
Ya know... If GW wanted to say screw you to overly serious players then maybe they could have just said something akin to that in the rulebook and left out the charades?
I'm not sure how these beard rules are supposed to be anything but a stiff middle finger to anyone with an old army.
Also, I'm pretty darn sure if AoS is intended for kids, they didn't need to scrap everything dedicated gamers enjoyed. Plus didn't several rumour mongers say that "oldhammer" would remain untouched? That AoS was a new thing and had nothing to do with FB?
My Friends and I have been looking over the AoS rules set and talking about what if 40k went that route. I don't think it would be the end of the world. It looks like it would play faster than the current game. It would also be a good game for one to enter into 40k with.
Think about using an expanded 'Space Hulk' on the table top, at least that is what we compared it to.
e.earnshaw wrote: If 40k turns into age of sigmar stile rules i will quit or carry on in severnth.
Join me in 7th brothar.
If the community as a whole just sticks to 7th, and somewhat reduces their purchases from GW after 40k:AoS, they'll probably come around.
Personally, when I hear 8E 40k is on it's way, I will stock up on some units to tide me over for a good while, and then cease purchases until the next edition.
I don't have any money to buy minis with anyway, so I'm good for weathering the storm. Serously, AOS is a balance-ignoring, unique-sucking, child friendly game. I pity the parent who buys this for their ten year old and then the child starts looking at the prevous editions.
e.earnshaw wrote: If 40k turns into age of sigmar stile rules i will quit or carry on in severnth.
Join me in 7th brothar.
If the community as a whole just sticks to 7th, and somewhat reduces their purchases from GW after 40k:AoS, they'll probably come around.
Personally, when I hear 8E 40k is on it's way, I will stock up on some units to tide me over for a good while, and then cease purchases until the next edition.
You won't hear it from GW until after someone's scanned the WD they got the Thursday before its release.
Through the lens of video games especially, it seems clear that consumers - especially younger consumers (GET OFF MY LAWN) - just don't care about the same things we do. They WILL buy in to the heavily-marketed, fancy new thing on the shelf. Forget that it's half-finished or functionally broken.
Age of Sigmar will sell very well, and I'm sure will gather a non-insignificant following. And then we'll be next.
Call me a doomsayer, but all the signs I can see point to this being the future of the hobby for GW products.
darkcloak wrote: Ya know... If GW wanted to say screw you to overly serious players then maybe they could have just said something akin to that in the rulebook and left out the charades?
I'm not sure how these beard rules are supposed to be anything but a stiff middle finger to anyone with an old army.
Also, I'm pretty darn sure if AoS is intended for kids, they didn't need to scrap everything dedicated gamers enjoyed. Plus didn't several rumour mongers say that "oldhammer" would remain untouched? That AoS was a new thing and had nothing to do with FB?
Liars.
I hope this whole thing blows over quickly.
Without gutting and destroy WHFB they could have made a Warhammer Lite game that could be entry level to get others hooked and then work to move them to the full game after a while. Instead they've kicked all current fantasy players in the balls in the hopes of getting some new customers instead. Smh
Edited for a follow up question: If their goal is to draw in a whole bunch of new players from a broader market, exactly how are they planning to do that? They have all but killed their relationship with most privately owned game stores anymore and they do all of their advertising on their own website and in their house organ magazines. So how is word getting out to those outside that circle? Might be easier in the UK since GW's stores are more ubiquitous there, but in the US a large majority of the remaining stores are single worker operations stuck in low traffic strip malls off the beaten path to save on rent and staff costs. Not going to reach a much broader audience that way. When you add in the fact that they announce a new product the week before it is released their marketing just sucks, and they hope a completely new incarnation of the game, which basically shafts existing players of the game will somehow take off and incorporate a whole new segment of the market? Is it supposed to happen magically?
The core rules and the Warscrolls would be pretty ideal for 40k (with some tweaks). I'd love to see a simpler, more stream-lined game with great mechanics for diminishing returns on powerful creatures.
The problem is the lack of points or any other balancing mechanics. If you took a similar base rules set, but added a good point system and some army building restrictions, I could totally get behind 40k adopting a similar base rules set.
die toten hosen wrote: . i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?
You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.
Games not out and its already broken? lol
Roll 2 add the results... sorry i wasnt clear apparently
Were you rolling d12s? max you can get on 2d6 is 12. So i think someone is fabricating their story about winning 3 out of 5 games with the bell.
Skriker wrote: Might be easier in the UK since GW's stores are more ubiquitous there,
You'd think so, but GW stores are practically invisible to all, unless you've been told about them. One of the closest GW stores to me is situated on a highstreet, but off through a short alleyway next to a comic book store. The two stores almost never see new people, unless those new people were introduced to such things by someone they know.
Another GW store near me is right out in the open, but with a small sign, and is sandwiched between a bunch of other, more obvious stores. Unless you know what you're looking for, a GW store front is almost invisible.
die toten hosen wrote: . i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.
uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?
You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.
Games not out and its already broken? lol
Roll 2 add the results... sorry i wasnt clear apparently
Were you rolling d12s? max you can get on 2d6 is 12. So i think someone is fabricating their story about winning 3 out of 5 games with the bell.
His rule allows you to pick any result. Not any side of the dice.
There is a result numbered 13 on the screaming bell chart. He can literally just pick that result.
I dont know how anyone can only win 3 of 5 games with it. It is literally done in the first turn and can be deployed so nothing can hurt it
EDIT:
I was assuming fateweaver being involved. No idea what toter hosen is talking about
I think balance would be fairly easy to maintain. You look at your army, look at the other guy's army and go "yeah, ok, let's play" or "nah, feth that. I have ten guys and a truck, you have 10 tanks, six planes, four giant robots and a squig stuffed into Logan's chariot. Feth you."
I think GW will move the rules for 40k to an AOS model, but for different reasons.
New releases are a vision statement of sorts. It's a company saying now see what we can do.
AOS rules are very basic. There's a lack of the thematic vision seen in previous GW releases. It's not that they are actually bad, things like the fateweaver bell trick will go away at some point. It's that they are immature and need time to come together.
(For that matter, the warscrolls are very basic. They don't offer enough fluff to capture someone's imagination. This is not going to ignite the passions of hordes of nerds the way books used to.)
But the game does speak to the level of sophistication of the company. GW will move in this direction because this is what GW is capable of these days. If they were capable of something more polished and sophisticated, we would see it in AOS.
There's no reason to assume the company is capable of doing better. 40k may have been a better system at some point, but the balance issues are way out of control and it takes too long to correct them. CSM / Ork / Nid / SOB / AM players are always at a disadvantage and alienating large portions of your player base does not bode well.
I think 40k will move to AOS style rules because that's the level GW can achieve.
Psienesis wrote: I think balance would be fairly easy to maintain. You look at your army, look at the other guy's army and go "yeah, ok, let's play" or "nah, feth that. I have ten guys and a truck, you have 10 tanks, six planes, four giant robots and a squig stuffed into Logan's chariot. Feth you."
The main problem with this is that you think people want a fair game, or that people can agree on what's fair in the first place. It's not impossible, but it's uncommon to say the least.
Most of 40K's problems could be cleared up with a decent FAQ, but FAQs are the one 'hobby product' GW doesn't make.
To be fair, the point at which GW stopped making FAQs was the time at which they would have had to task the writing team to begin statting Warscrolls for every single unit in Fantasy while beginning work on all of the scenarios around which the balance of AoS appears to be drawn from. The writing team has been really, really busy as of late. I've got my fingers crossed that this means FAQs may return shortly.
But I'm not holding my breath.
AoS40k will only happen if AoS is a *huge* hit. If fantasy begins outselling 40k, it is likely to happen. If not, then they will be kept two very different systems.
Massawyrm wrote: To be fair, the point at which GW stopped making FAQs was the time at which they would have had to task the writing team to begin statting Warscrolls for every single unit in Fantasy while beginning work on all of the scenarios around which the balance of AoS appears to be drawn from. The writing team has been really, really busy as of late. I've got my fingers crossed that this means FAQs may return shortly.
So, GW stopped making FAQs the day before AoS was published? Because they certainly didn't spend much more time than that on creating the AoS rules.
AoS40k will only happen if AoS is a *huge* hit.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. If GW is stupid enough to think that AoS is anything but a spectacularly bad idea then what guarantee is there that its failure would prevent them from doing the same to 40k?
insaniak wrote: It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.
If they did that it would be a huge improvement. But sadly AoS has nothing to do with MTG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote: Guys, it's... it's a game where having a large enough moustache gives you combat bonuses. If you're complaining about the rules being silly, I think you've missed the point.
No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.
They're worth a TON of money. I think they're doing a decent job in the business industry. They're a model company with game rules attached. Not a game company with models attached.
insaniak wrote: It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.
If they did that it would be a huge improvement. But sadly AoS has nothing to do with MTG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote: Guys, it's... it's a game where having a large enough moustache gives you combat bonuses. If you're complaining about the rules being silly, I think you've missed the point.
No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.
They're worth a TON of money. I think they're doing a decent job in the business industry. They're a model company with game rules attached. Not a game company with models attached.
Is your business more successful?
Well they are successful now because of their history. And actually, 40k used to have a lot of wackiness to it, they have since turned down that sillynness. The Black Templar used to have the holy orb of antioch (right out of monty python). the guard used to have Sly Marbo (sly is sylvers stallones nickname and marbo is an anagram of rambo).
But we will see if this new business model is a success and how popular it becomes. I don't see a lot of people wanting to jump in to it though and the enthusiasm in my area is almost none. So while the business used to have a great reputation and be very popular, they may just be cruising on that former glory right now.
insaniak wrote: It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.
If they did that it would be a huge improvement. But sadly AoS has nothing to do with MTG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote: Guys, it's... it's a game where having a large enough moustache gives you combat bonuses. If you're complaining about the rules being silly, I think you've missed the point.
No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.
They're worth a TON of money. I think they're doing a decent job in the business industry. They're a model company with game rules attached. Not a game company with models attached.
Is your business more successful?
How do you know they're doing a decent job, do YOU have a successful business?
I'm guessing your reaction to that is "no, what's your point?" Well the same thing goes for making remarks that people can't judge how a business is doing without running one of nearly equal size.
It's like Michael Eisner at Disney- it was quite obviously that he wasn't running the company well, and people reacted to him poorly. And guess what happened- the board eventually kicked him out of the position. The same thing equally applies to GW, and can be a result of the company being run down enough by Kirby & Krony Krew.
The company has been losing a lot of revenue. I'm not going to sit here and repeat all of that because it's from the financials thread, but it would seem obvious there is trouble on their end. And I don't think it requires an MBA to discuss some of their issues if you can support it with well-supported evidence.
Jambles wrote:Through the lens of video games especially, it seems clear that consumers - especially younger consumers (GET OFF MY LAWN) - just don't care about the same things we do. They WILL buy in to the heavily-marketed, fancy new thing on the shelf. Forget that it's half-finished or functionally broken.
Age of Sigmar will sell very well, and I'm sure will gather a non-insignificant following. And then we'll be next.
Call me a doomsayer, but all the signs I can see point to this being the future of the hobby for GW products.
As one of those younger consumers, I think it's safe to say that those who have the patience and/or attention span to invest in something like wargaming in the first place generally care just a bit for balance. Those that want something quick, simple, and easy are already playing cawwadooty.
insaniak wrote: It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.
If they did that it would be a huge improvement. But sadly AoS has nothing to do with MTG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote: Guys, it's... it's a game where having a large enough moustache gives you combat bonuses. If you're complaining about the rules being silly, I think you've missed the point.
No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.
They're worth a TON of money. I think they're doing a decent job in the business industry. They're a model company with game rules attached. Not a game company with models attached.
Is your business more successful?
Well they are successful now because of their history. And actually, 40k used to have a lot of wackiness to it, they have since turned down that sillynness. The Black Templar used to have the holy orb of antioch (right out of monty python). the guard used to have Sly Marbo (sly is sylvers stallones nickname and marbo is an anagram of rambo).
But we will see if this new business model is a success and how popular it becomes. I don't see a lot of people wanting to jump in to it though and the enthusiasm in my area is almost none. So while the business used to have a great reputation and be very popular, they may just be cruising on that former glory right now.
I think GW is aware, at least to a certain extent. The appeal that 40K has over other wargames is the setting. Obviously, different players will care more about different aspects of the game than others, but the grim darkness of the far future is what sets it apart from competitors, which is why I believe they have been afraid to move the storyline forward at all.
The storyline moves forward incrementally, sorta, but the general gist of 40K now is how it has always been. I say "sorta" because while we hear about Planet X getting blown up and Person A dying, another hero is introduced and another world is found/recovered/captured... the actual effect on the setting is minimal. Same with the major events. The Months of Shame supposedly wrecked up the Space Wolf fleet in clashes with the GK across the Imperium.... but that hasn't stopped the SW from launching a number of Hunts and otherwise performing their job in the interim. Or the GK, for that matter.
as for AoS, I've heard from a friend who owns a fairly major game supply company that if GW's finanicals don't turn around they could go bankrupt in as little as ten years. AoS is proably part of that effort to correct it. though I don't think it'll work. (the person who said they're a mini company that also produces gaming stuff was dead on. in the GW/Citadel minis relationship. Citadel is clearly the one driving the show) fact is that many other gaming companies have also tried to reverse down turns by simplifying the rules to drag in a new younger audiance, as well as "using a time jump to effectivly reboot the setting, so that the reams and reams of backlore is no longer there to intimidate the new comer" the two examples I personally have experiance with is WOTC's 4th edition forgotten realms, and wizkids Mechwarrior Dark Age game (incidently battletech/mechwarrior is honestly the type of game GW seems to want 40k to be, a game you can sit down and play in an afternoon, but also one that's popular for narritive building) in both these cases the end product flubbed. people who where there primarily for the setting absolutly despised what had happened to it (BTW this is why an AOS for 40k would be idiotic. 40K the setting has far more fans then 40k the table top game) and the total rules change also drove off fans of the games ruleset. the end result was they had to build a fanbase from scratch.
Wulfmar wrote:How soon do you guys reckon it will be until 8th comes out?
I think it'll be this time next year.
I think GW believes their average customer sticks around for just shy of two years, so they want to get them with the initial purchase, a kit here or there and then try to get them to rebuy the game at least once before they quit.
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
Perhaps. That's a very subjective conclusion, however, and certainly not true of everyone. While removing points values may be fun for some, one may objectively assert that such a game is by no means balanced. It's also of limited utility in pick-up games.
I think the trick would be like one posted put it.
Player-1: Selects one unit of choice
Player-2: Selects one unit of choice
Player-1: Selects one unit of choice
Player-2: Selects one one unit of choice
Player-1: Selects one unit of choice
Player-2: Selects one one unit of choice
and so on until both have fielded what they both field enough to for the table to handle.
This way if your opponent starts to drop Riptides/Wraith Knight's/Imperial Knights/Banblades on the table you can put down your counter.
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
You could do the same thing, but with X amount of unset points, i.e., play a 2k game, 1k preset, 1k put together on the fly. Regardless, I think it's still not great, and the "I pick you pick" method has some major flaws too, that being making pick up games harder, tournies MUCH harder to organize. Sure it might be ok for a beer and chips game, but other than that, what's the advantage? Better balance? as if. If you set down 10 CSM tacticals, and I set down a knight as "one" unit, I have a MASSIVE advantage. You then set down, whatever anti knight unit you have, and I set down a WK, or some WG w/ a WWP, and so on. Having an "I pick you pivk" system doesn't work unless there's something more involved, i.e. "You must take 2 troops, 1HQ, etc etc". Which, if AoS is any indication, they won't bother with including.
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
You could do the same thing, but with X amount of unset points, i.e., play a 2k game, 1k preset, 1k put together on the fly. Regardless, I think it's still not great, and the "I pick you pick" method has some major flaws too, that being making pick up games harder, tournies MUCH harder to organize. Sure it might be ok for a beer and chips game, but other than that, what's the advantage? Better balance? as if. If you set down 10 CSM tacticals, and I set down a knight as "one" unit, I have a MASSIVE advantage. You then set down, whatever anti knight unit you have, and I set down a WK, or some WG w/ a WWP, and so on. Having an "I pick you pivk" system doesn't work unless there's something more involved, i.e. "You must take 2 troops, 1HQ, etc etc". Which, if AoS is any indication, they won't bother with including.
This problem can easily be solved by talking to your opponent first too. If you find out he wast to drop two Knights on the table and you have nothing to deal with it in your Army Box, what makes it any different than two CAD Armies?
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
You could do the same thing, but with X amount of unset points, i.e., play a 2k game, 1k preset, 1k put together on the fly. Regardless, I think it's still not great, and the "I pick you pick" method has some major flaws too, that being making pick up games harder, tournies MUCH harder to organize. Sure it might be ok for a beer and chips game, but other than that, what's the advantage? Better balance? as if. If you set down 10 CSM tacticals, and I set down a knight as "one" unit, I have a MASSIVE advantage. You then set down, whatever anti knight unit you have, and I set down a WK, or some WG w/ a WWP, and so on. Having an "I pick you pivk" system doesn't work unless there's something more involved, i.e. "You must take 2 troops, 1HQ, etc etc". Which, if AoS is any indication, they won't bother with including.
This problem can easily be solved by talking to your opponent first too. If you find out he wast to drop two Knights on the table and you have nothing to deal with it in your Army Box, what makes it any different than two CAD Armies?
What if I'm not playing a PUG? What if I'm a more competitive player who wants to play in a tourny? Do I simply ask my opponent "No, please don't field 50 WKs/IKs/Baneblades? I'd like to win!"?
Talking is well and fine, but honestly, you shouldn't NEED to talk to your opponent to agree on what to play. It's far easier to go "let's play 1500pts" than to just put models down on the table and keep going until it "feels right".
This problem can easily be solved by talking to your opponent first too. If you find out he wast to drop two Knights on the table and you have nothing to deal with it in your Army Box, what makes it any different than two CAD Armies?
That same problem can be solved the same way with points.
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
You could do the same thing, but with X amount of unset points, i.e., play a 2k game, 1k preset, 1k put together on the fly. Regardless, I think it's still not great, and the "I pick you pick" method has some major flaws too, that being making pick up games harder, tournies MUCH harder to organize. Sure it might be ok for a beer and chips game, but other than that, what's the advantage? Better balance? as if. If you set down 10 CSM tacticals, and I set down a knight as "one" unit, I have a MASSIVE advantage. You then set down, whatever anti knight unit you have, and I set down a WK, or some WG w/ a WWP, and so on. Having an "I pick you pivk" system doesn't work unless there's something more involved, i.e. "You must take 2 troops, 1HQ, etc etc". Which, if AoS is any indication, they won't bother with including.
This problem can easily be solved by talking to your opponent first too. If you find out he wast to drop two Knights on the table and you have nothing to deal with it in your Army Box, what makes it any different than two CAD Armies?
What if I'm not playing a PUG? What if I'm a more competitive player who wants to play in a tourny? Do I simply ask my opponent "No, please don't field 50 WKs/IKs/Baneblades? I'd like to win!"?
Talking is well and fine, but honestly, you shouldn't NEED to talk to your opponent to agree on what to play. It's far easier to go "let's play 1500pts" than to just put models down on the table and keep going until it "feels right".
Then a 5 min conversation before the game should tell you that.
This problem can easily be solved by talking to your opponent first too. If you find out he wast to drop two Knights on the table and you have nothing to deal with it in your Army Box, what makes it any different than two CAD Armies?
That same problem can be solved the same way with points.
No points don't really stop a 5 Imperial Night list of 50 Scatter Bikes from being used at all.
You should not "Have" to talk to your opponent, you should "Want" to talk to your opponent. I have found this solves problems before you even start the game.
No points don't really stop a 5 Imperial Night list of 50 Scatter Bikes from being used at all.
Neither does no points.
Both are solved by talking to your opponent. There is no advantage to a game without points or similar balancing mechanism.
Both No Points and a Point system have there problems.
You can solve a lot of those problems by talking with your opponent for a few moments before the game. This can be the week before or right before, but I have never had a truly bed game by doing this. Most of my 'Bad Games' have come from and opponent who just plops down his army on the table and says "Lets Play"
Martel732 wrote: I don't want to have to beg my opponent to not win. That's just pathetic.
No, it has nothing to do with that. It is about what is expected from the game, finding out what he is planning on playing basically and what he wants from the game. Finding out if the armies are equal to each other in overall power. More than once I have encountered an under powered list and after talking with my Opponent did little things like just giving him the choice of mission or the choice of who deploys first.
I had one game back in 4th where I told my opponent that I wanted to try my small Deathwing and he just nodded and pulled out his shiny new Eldar Dex and just blew my off the table using his runes to make sure I got no cover or anything. I found he "Never Practices." If he was willing to talk I would have know this and moved on to the next person instead of wasting and hour of both our time.
Martel732 wrote: I don't want to have to beg my opponent to not win. That's just pathetic.
No, it has nothing to do with that. It is about what is expected from the game, finding out what he is planning on playing basically and what he wants from the game. Finding out if the armies are equal to each other in overall power. More than once I have encountered an under powered list and after talking with my Opponent did little things like just giving him the choice of mission or the choice of who deploys first.
I had one game back in 4th where I told my opponent that I wanted to try my small Deathwing and he just nodded and pulled out his shiny new Eldar Dex and just blew my off the table using his runes to make sure I got no cover or anything. I found he "Never Practices." If he was willing to talk I would have know this and moved on to the next person instead of wasting and hour of both our time.
No one is going to tell me what they are playing. That's the whole point of random opponents. No one can list tailor. Expectations: tabling on the earliest turn possible. If you table, then objectives don't matter.
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
You could do the same thing, but with X amount of unset points, i.e., play a 2k game, 1k preset, 1k put together on the fly. Regardless, I think it's still not great, and the "I pick you pick" method has some major flaws too, that being making pick up games harder, tournies MUCH harder to organize. Sure it might be ok for a beer and chips game, but other than that, what's the advantage? Better balance? as if. If you set down 10 CSM tacticals, and I set down a knight as "one" unit, I have a MASSIVE advantage. You then set down, whatever anti knight unit you have, and I set down a WK, or some WG w/ a WWP, and so on. Having an "I pick you pivk" system doesn't work unless there's something more involved, i.e. "You must take 2 troops, 1HQ, etc etc". Which, if AoS is any indication, they won't bother with including.
This problem can easily be solved by talking to your opponent first too. If you find out he wast to drop two Knights on the table and you have nothing to deal with it in your Army Box, what makes it any different than two CAD Armies?
What if I'm not playing a PUG? What if I'm a more competitive player who wants to play in a tourny? Do I simply ask my opponent "No, please don't field 50 WKs/IKs/Baneblades? I'd like to win!"?
Talking is well and fine, but honestly, you shouldn't NEED to talk to your opponent to agree on what to play. It's far easier to go "let's play 1500pts" than to just put models down on the table and keep going until it "feels right".
Then a 5 min conversation before the game should tell you that.
[/i]
You missed the "tourny play" bit there. You cannot go to a tourny and expect people to conform to what you THINK is reasonable, along with being FAR simpler to organize.
No points is a fine system if both players are looking for the same thing, an extremely casual game, and nothing else. It hurts PUGs, it hurts tourny play, it hurts even the PARTIALLY competitive games between players.
As for the 2 CAD thing, isn't that what AoS threw out? No more force org chart it's all unbound? Just place whatever and hope your opponent isn't a jackass mentality? The FOCs in 40k at least attempt provide SOME balance by (generally) limiting how many Knights you can bring (i.e. 1 per CAD, and obviously not all the formations are balanced to say the least).
Regardless of how much 40K gets Sigmar'd in the next edition, there's one thing that's very likely to happen - the Force Org Chart and Combined Arms Detachment get removed from the game. It's more or less already happened to some extent.
The game will essentialy be unbound, with the option to include formations or detachments for bonuses.
I said it before and will say it again, if gw does to 40k what is has done to fantasy, it will kill 40k, the game will die off, AOS has totally and utterly flopped in our area (and a lot of areas id bet too), over time as the models dry up for fantasy and they move all the units to circle bases, the game will be done.
The same will happen to 40k, no points, not even an attempt at balance, childish, patronising rules, cartoonish awful models (subjective I know, but 40k has been going that way for a while with chaos at least).
I think GW would have a hard time justifying doing to the rules like they did with AOS while still charging for said rules. THAT particular combination I think would literally kill 40k.
I think GW need to see these forum posts and address the concerns of people who currently play the game (instead of going for new customers) before making drastic changes...
But then again, it's GW. When did they give a feth about the people playing the game?
DRC wrote: I think GW need to see these forum posts and address the concerns of people who currently play the game (instead of going for new customers) before making drastic changes...
But then again, it's GW. When did they give a feth about the people playing the game?
Editions 1 through 3.
After that "feth those fething nerds" became their motto.
When did the Rulebooks stop having a Designer's Notes section at the end? Where they'd explain what they'd done and why it was an improvement on the game for the players.
I haven't bought a 40k Rulebook since 3rd Ed so I'm not sure but I know said sections certainly petered out after WFB 7th Ed
Without gutting and destroy WHFB they could have made a Warhammer Lite game that could be entry level to get others hooked and then work to move them to the full game after a while. Instead they've kicked all current fantasy players in the balls in the hopes of getting some new customers instead. Smh
Sounds like you're describing mordheim. Which could have worked wonders if released every 18-months with new settings, like mordheim city of the damned, Karak Zigil the Abandoned Dwarf Hold, Lustria the Lost Lizard City, Skaventight the Maze etc. I never understood for the love of my life why the warband system wasnt made more compatible with the mainstream armies in WHFB and used as a springboard for new players. Instead they made WHFB the childish part of the franchice though it costed 20 times as much as mordheim which was the more adult themed version.
Speaking about recruitment for WHFB, I was drafted into it by the specialist games, because they were easy to start with and didnt cost an arm and a leg. I have a hard time seeing how GW can get the type of publicity for AoS as they did back then and when.
But lets face it... Fantasy is much less popular now than it was 15 years ago during the lord of the rings craze and "flop" of the SW prequels. It went 1970-sci fi, 1980-s fantasy, 1990-sci fi, and 2000-fantasy, in terms of popularity, right? So we are seeing sci fi becoming more popular again, i bet the disney star wars films will raise this popularity enourmously...
Anyway. I'm done with fantasy now, trying to sell my last army on ebay now as we speak. Its hard to see them go, but havent played for a long while and lets face it... when would I have the time to field 200 skaven anyway?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote: the type of game GW seems to want 40k to be, a game you can sit down and play in an afternoon, but also one that's popular for narritive building) in both these cases the end product flubbed. people who where there primarily for the setting absolutly despised what had happened to it (BTW this is why an AOS for 40k would be idiotic. 40K the setting has far more fans then 40k the table top game) and the total rules change also drove off fans of the games ruleset. the end result was they had to build a fanbase from scratch.
I dont disagree that 40k is a setting, but as it is its growing a little stale. Fantasy set up all these lovely conflicts and characters, but never resolved anything, and look where that lack of freshness took the setting.
40k could have a little story progress. It could be done tastefully, with the emperor pronounced dead by some parts of the imperium, while a terran loyalist faction (Astra militarum) claims he is still living. The space marine chapters forms their own realms, infighting over tithe and other things (why the heck are the loyalist SM's fighting each other all the time on the table top anyway), and CSM finally getting out of the eye of terror. over some years, some missing primarchs comes back, reunites the imperium, declares that the golden thrones is working again etc, and that the emperor has spoken to him in a vision etc. before starting it over again.
I am pretty sure this will never happen. It seems like AoS will, in the long run, be abandoned by the community unless large changes are made to it. I mean everyone from other gaming systems aren't going to switch as the rules just...don't exist and many people from Fantasy look at it with hate. Pretty much the only people who seem to be playing it are new people, people trying to sell it to new people, and those from Fantasy who are just desperately hoping this is the new thing since their old Fantasy is dead and are just too invested in Fantasy to walk away.
Both No Points and a Point system have there problems.
You can solve a lot of those problems by talking with your opponent for a few moments before the game. This can be the week before or right before, but I have never had a truly bed game by doing this. Most of my 'Bad Games' have come from and opponent who just plops down his army on the table and says "Lets Play"
Which in a game with a GOOD points system shouldn't happen very often. Sure you'll occasionally get a poor match up, but when point values are actually done right power levels on one side of the table will not be horribly skewed over the other. The way to fix this is not the remove the points, but to FIX the points. If you remove the points the problem never goes away. If you fix the points the problem is actually addressed.
One can play a point system game without points if one chooses, but the opposite is not true without building a complete system of unit point costs to use first.
Accurate point values only get you half way to a balanced system that delivers great pick up game experience.
The play testing to find synergistic anomalies and counter them with a well devised and intuitive army composition,(F.O.C ).
It the other half of the process.
Also it helps tremendously if the points values are applied at the level of interaction.
In 40k they assign point values to elements that make up the unit, and then adjust them at the over all force level.Completely mission out the unit level where they have the greatest impact.
To get as accurate as possible point values , having a rule set that covers all the interaction, with the minimum of resolution methods, and intuitive game mechanics helps massively.
40k uses over SEVEN resolution methods and the game mechanics from ancient battles to cover a FRACTION of the game play 40k should have.And uses over eighty special rules to fill in the gaps.
Yet some people still think it can be 'fixed' with a few tweeks.
When a group of professional game developers could not 'fix it' with innumerable tweeks and patches over the last seventeen years.
A complete re write for 40k is needed.
BUT working to bring a DEFINED game play to players in the most intuitive and elegant way possible.
And for the sanity of all concerned tell the players what the game play you are trying to achieve...
Then that way the rules can be judged fairly on what they are intended to be, rather than what players want them to,be.
Bartali wrote: Regardless of how much 40K gets Sigmar'd in the next edition, there's one thing that's very likely to happen - the Force Org Chart and Combined Arms Detachment get removed from the game. It's more or less already happened to some extent.
The game will essentialy be unbound, with the option to include formations or detachments for bonuses.
I don't agree, the FOC is essential for the 40K game to work out... I'd love to see sturdier rules for the FOC in 8th... not that that'll happen. :(
mondo80 wrote: I do see a few advantages to the new system that might work well with 40k.
What are those advantages? Being so obviously terrible that nobody will ever play the game, and therefore the problem of not being able to afford to keep up with new rulebook releases will be solved? AoS is so unbelievably bad that the best thing GW can do is commit honorable suicide to cleanse the shame of publishing it, and never speak of the abomination again.
Indeed. I mean, some of the rules are complete jokes.
I have to bribe my opponent, and they have to accept, or I can't use Greasus Goldtooth's big main ability?
mondo80 wrote: I do see a few advantages to the new system that might work well with 40k.
What are those advantages? Being so obviously terrible that nobody will ever play the game, and therefore the problem of not being able to afford to keep up with new rulebook releases will be solved? AoS is so unbelievably bad that the best thing GW can do is commit honorable suicide to cleanse the shame of publishing it, and never speak of the abomination again.
Indeed. I mean, some of the rules are complete jokes.
I have to bribe my opponent, and they have to accept, or I can't use Greasus Goldtooth's big main ability?
"Yes. Now give me £1000 and I'll concede the game to you" - GW
My buddy and I have very limited time to play 40k. Like once a month, and we can't even finish a game because of all the setup and special rules referencing.
If Games Workshop made an "Age of Ultramar" or whatever for 40k, we'd jump on it and play the hell out of it.
ziggurattt wrote: My buddy and I have very limited time to play 40k. Like once a month, and we can't even finish a game because of all the setup and special rules referencing.
If Games Workshop made an "Age of Ultramar" or whatever for 40k, we'd jump on it and play the hell out of it.
Or...GW could just make a better 40k that doesn't involve stripping it down to 'make up the rules yourselves and make pew-pew noises'.
There is very much a middle ground between 40k's current bloat, and AoS extreme simplicity and shallowness.
As an aside, check out X-wing if you haven't already. Super simple, plenty of fun, lots of depth, and the models are pre-painted but can be painted over if that's what you're in to.
As an aside, check out X-wing if you haven't already. Super simple, plenty of fun, lots of depth, and the models are pre-painted but can be painted over if that's what you're in to.
Thanks for the recommendation. That Millennium Falcon model looks sweet.
As an aside, check out X-wing if you haven't already. Super simple, plenty of fun, lots of depth, and the models are pre-painted but can be painted over if that's what you're in to.
Thanks for the recommendation. That Millennium Falcon model looks sweet.
No worries, and if you've always wanted to command the might of a star destroyer or do your best Ackbar impression on the bridge of a Mon Calamari cruiser, check out Armada, the capital ship version.
ziggurattt wrote: My buddy and I have very limited time to play 40k. Like once a month, and we can't even finish a game because of all the setup and special rules referencing.
If Games Workshop made an "Age of Ultramar" or whatever for 40k, we'd jump on it and play the hell out of it.
