I'm hoping that AoS is a huge hit and GW does the same to 40K. Simple rules, free codices and free rules would be great. I'm guessing the chances of that are slim...
BUT -- what if AoS is a tremendous success - could it happen?
If they do, I hope it's a companion piece. That being said, I doubt they will because 40k as it sits is still selling by the bucketload. Fantasy was 13% (IIRC) of their total revenue, hence the giant shakeup.
For what it's worth though, AoS is selling like hotcakes in my area, so who knows.
For what it's worth though, AoS is selling like hotcakes in my area, so who knows.
It's doing really well here too. The reaction of most players is that the game is "fun". But I think each area is different.
Fun is something 40K hasn't been in quite some time. Going back to more of a RT model would potentially isolate many, but it would make the game a lot more fun - if you have the right opponents. It seems like most criticism of Age of Sigmar is just solved by playing with different opponents.
But I bet most 40K players weren't even born when RT came out. That was a different time.
Yah AOS is selling really well here at my store (36 starter sets so far).
Honestly it does make the games pretty enjoyable as long as you don't think hard on balance. I play pretty competitively on 40k though, but I think this is a huge first step for GW.
By the time they do this to 40k, I would hope they work out the kinks of this release. A 20 page main rulebook for 40k would probably be a sweet spot.
Great? How the hell is having godawful rules, no points system, entire armies squatted, terrible fluff, boring models, and completely killing any real strategy "good"? AOS is complete gak, if it came to 40K I'd want to see nothing but GW finally implode and go bankrupt, thus hopefully allowing some other company to pick up the 40K IP rather than have the entire model range wiped out for incredibly generic models.
Also, just because something is free doesn't make it good. The trash outside a restaurant is free, doesn't mean you should it- it's still garbage.
Wyzilla wrote: Great? How the hell is having godawful rules, no points system, entire armies squatted, terrible fluff, boring models, and completely killing any real strategy "good"? AOS is complete gak, if it came to 40K I'd want to see nothing but GW finally implode and go bankrupt, thus hopefully allowing some other company to pick up the 40K IP rather than have the entire model range wiped out for incredibly generic models.
Also, just because something is free doesn't make it good. The trash outside a restaurant is free, doesn't mean you should it- it's still garbage.
The consensus is that even if it were to happen it would supplement rather than supplant 40k. AoS happen because Fantasy sales dropped so drastically low that it demanded something of a radical change; when individual 40k armie's sell more minis than all of Fantasy that's a problem. AoS for its shortcomings is an entry level game, so if you've been playing for years and it doesn't appeal to you its because it's not meant to. For years people wanted games that were entry level, that required fewer minis, and where the rules were simple and free. This game is now one of the cheapest miniature games to start playing. So even if it sucks, it's the first edition. First edition fantasy sucked, so play this provide good feedback and hope they incorporate the changes as quickly as possible... Or not.
I think the rumored Heresy era plastics and mini game that those are associated with are gonna be GW's 40k -AoS style game.
Don't see them making sweeping changes to 40K like they did to fantasy.
However, I'm not sure if GW will Stormcast the Space Marine models. I like the current SM line but wouldn't be opposed to AoS scaled marines - which I think look more truescale.
Seems to me all GW had to do to "fix" FB was cut their exorbitant unit prices and update a few army books.
I bet AoS would be blown completely out of the water by a Brettonia army book and updated model range. A Skaven army book would have trounced AoS total sales in one day.
Couple that with an across the board percentile discount on all WFB products and you would have had a recipe for instant revitalization. Even the neckbeards with full blocks of Chaos warriors would have gone apeshit for reduced prices.
Just look at the SM release. They did what, exactly to the new ASM kit, change a pose, slap an Aquila on a kneepad? They even jacked the price and no one batted an eye.
Just imagine how many feths would actually have been given. As it stands now? Well gak, we all know the new toys are gonna be more expensive, they have to recoup those "lost" army book sales somehow!
I'd very much welceome a skirmish ruleset for 40k with more realistic rules and customisation options for individual squadies.
However if gW did realease this, it would be as a supplement / sub-game. Given that their development of the 40k ruleset, product line and manufacturing hardware has been to cater for bigger armies, it's very unlikely that they would suddenly change to a game that requires only two dozen models a side. It'd axe the level of models they'd sell which would be financially fatal to them.
The whole AOS has actually stopped me buying anything GW for a while, I was tempted to get a reaver titan or finally start a mechanicus army but who knows what will happen in a few years?
Look back 12 months, most fantasy posts were people looking forward to 9th edition and how it could be set in a more desperate time like 40k, then the end of times hit and people seemed to be into fantasy again.....then this BS stuck pretty much kicking all those players in the face.
darkcloak wrote: Seems to me all GW had to do to "fix" FB was cut their exorbitant unit prices and update a few army books.
I bet AoS would be blown completely out of the water by a Brettonia army book and updated model range. A Skaven army book would have trounced AoS total sales in one day.
Couple that with an across the board percentile discount on all WFB products and you would have had a recipe for instant revitalization. Even the neckbeards with full blocks of Chaos warriors would have gone apeshit for reduced prices.
Just look at the SM release. They did what, exactly to the new ASM kit, change a pose, slap an Aquila on a kneepad? They even jacked the price and no one batted an eye.
Just imagine how many feths would actually have been given. As it stands now? Well gak, we all know the new toys are gonna be more expensive, they have to recoup those "lost" army book sales somehow!
I've seen more people buying AoS starter sets than I've seen buy any WHFB kit in the last two years. So I don't think even a complete overhaul of Bretonnian miniatures and a release could top it.
The problem with Fantasy was bigger than just the price of kits or rules. WHFB had gotten to the point that to have a viable army required you to buy so many more models and it simply reached the point where that barrier to entry was too prohibitive for people just starting out. Even still for all the effort the vast majority of models only contributed to the game as wound counters with a few random heroes contributing more than all those other minis combined.
AoS has problems, but it solves the systemic issues that WHFB had that really couldn't be resolved with just an update.
Whilst I doubt GW will go full AoS with 40k, the design philosophy AoS is built on has been creeping into 40k for quite some time now. Unbound, allies and LoW/Escalation all seem to show GW moving 40k in the direction of AoS, whilst still keeping it's core (seeing as it's still their big money maker). I too would like 40k to be more streamlined, I'd rather they do that by reverting to 5th and ditching most of the randomness 6th brought as opposed to pulling an AoS and dicting everything and pumping out what, in my opinion, is a half finished mess
Entry level game. And a first edition one at that. It's not meant to be a hugely deep and intricate game like warmachine or infinity. Go there if you want that. And for what it's worth, I don't like the aos rules but then again I'm not the target audience.
Not as big a deal as you'd think. Plenty historicals (eg hail Caesar)don't use points values at all. Co operative mission design and army selection goes a long way. Along with themed and scenario based play. Your responsibility as a player doesn't 'just' encompass what you bring to the board. It's that kind of 'blind' list selection and attitude to gaming etiquette that holds that you are only responsible for your army, and he is responsible for his that causes a lot of the problems in the first place. Gaming can be so much more than 1500 points of x versus 1500 points of y randomly meeting in the wilderness, followed by 'roll scenario and go!'
Sure, you can put down a dozen dragons to your mates dozen Orucs. But should you? By all means, but you're gonna run out of friends and games very fast.
Because they were generic and boring? To be fair, generic high fantasy has lost a lot of its appeal. And It's not the first time gw has squatted something. Wfb had run its course. It's as simple as that. One a macro scale, very few people were interested in it.
Unfair statement. It's been out for three weeks. It takes years for settings to start to feel 'alive'. Give it a bit more time to develop, and then you can talk about terrible fluff.
I don't care for them personally, but that, like yours, is a subjective preference. Enough people seem to like them...
Wyzilla wrote: and completely killing any real strategy "good"?
Entry level game?
Wyzilla wrote: AOS is complete gak, if it came to 40K I'd want to see nothing but GW finally implode and go bankrupt, thus hopefully allowing some other company to pick up the 40K IP rather than have the entire model range wiped out for incredibly generic models.
Whfb wasn't generic, it had tons of personality and a beautiful gritty world of rats forming armies and toad magicians.
Wyzilla wrote: Great? How the hell is having godawful rules, no points system, entire armies squatted, terrible fluff, boring models, and completely killing any real strategy "good"? AOS is complete gak, if it came to 40K I'd want to see nothing but GW finally implode and go bankrupt, thus hopefully allowing some other company to pick up the 40K IP rather than have the entire model range wiped out for incredibly generic models.
Also, just because something is free doesn't make it good. The trash outside a restaurant is free, doesn't mean you should it- it's still garbage.
I agree 100% with everything about Age of Shareholders and I hate it to the bone, it even made me stop buying 40k for the moment as I despise GW so much.
However, rebooting just rules AoS style wouldn't hurt that much as in whfbimo as they are already simple in 40k. If they kept vehicles having weaker sides/ rear and upped movement ranges, the game could actualy gain in tactics department. Ofc points or gtfo though.
As for codieces, if they stopped releasing them a year ago, I would cry. Now with weird formations and most importantly cartoonish deviant arty artwork, I cant wait for that to happen tbh.
Who created that problem? GW for making a game that features massed battles or the players for refusing to play smaller games?
I don't know about you guys but IoB took all of two real purchases to bring both armies up to a "viable" standard. Even without buying anything that kit was still playable.
And who said starting WFB required a massive army? The meta? Pfft!
And make 40k die a horrible death?
Maybe, i play 30k so i'd be cool with it. Like i've been saying for some time: it'll become like D&D - which edition do you play? 6.5th
It's doing really well here too. The reaction of most players is that the game is "fun". But I think each area is different.
Fun is something 40K hasn't been in quite some time. Going back to more of a RT model would potentially isolate many, but it would make the game a lot more fun - if you have the right opponents. It seems like most criticism of Age of Sigmar is just solved by playing with different opponents.
But I bet most 40K players weren't even born when RT came out. That was a different time.
Mez
As someone who has been playing that long I will say that even Rogue Trader had more controls and balance than AoS does. At least it had point costs for things, sure you could field what you wanted early on, but it wasn't whatever you wanted for absolutely free. Also once more than just the Rogue Trader rulebook were out all armies started getting actual army lists too, so again not even remotely the same as AoS. All that was really lacking was the eventual FoC concepts to keep people from always just bringing a bunch of elite type units to every game and never bringing any normal troop type units. If AoS was closer to Rogue Trader I might actually like it.
The problem with Fantasy was bigger than just the price of kits or rules. WHFB had gotten to the point that to have a viable army required you to buy so many more models and it simply reached the point where that barrier to entry was too prohibitive for people just starting out. Even still for all the effort the vast majority of models only contributed to the game as wound counters with a few random heroes contributing more than all those other minis combined.
AoS has problems, but it solves the systemic issues that WHFB had that really couldn't be resolved with just an update.
Of course AoS solves some of the systemic issues by totally throwing the whole concept out the window. Battlefront did that too when they went from 1st edition to 2nd edition in Flames of War, but in their case they abandoned methods and concepts that were not fully adaptable to the game moving forward and instead released a BETTER game in its 2nd edition. 3rd edition was focused on problem areas that players had been discussing and highlighting for sometime on Battlefronts forums, so they fixed those problem areas, while not messing with the parts that worked and again released a BETTER game. Now look at GW, 30 years of production on WHFB and then they release AoS. It is not an improvement over WHFB. It is not a culmination of 30 years of game design. It is a lazy and cheap cop-out that leaves it totally to the players to fix its holes and try to add some real balance to the game. This is a typical GW completely ignore fixing problems and instead replace them with new problems.
AoS is now cheap to get into compared to WHFB, but heroes are even more overpowered now, because while WHFB didn't have perfect balance, AoS has no balance at all.
Age of Sigmar is fun, cheap and perfectly balanced for what it is doing. It is the Orks of tabletop miniature games, happy and at peace with what it is, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth only fuels its ascension as Perfect Game.
One can only hope other tabletop companies look to GW, the perverted old uncle of the gaming industry, and copy their winning formula in their own products.
Infinity? Poof, gone, replaced with a stripped down version with none of those unnecessary shooting mechanics or anime waifus . Malifaux? Now it's cyberpunk. Warmachine? Melt all those poorly fitting metal models into hexagonal bases for the Big New Game.
Age of Sigmar is the Battletech Clans, bringing order and superior PPCs to the diseased husk of the Inner Sphere that tabletop gaming has devolved into.
If GW wants to commit suicide they can make 40k like AoS, having two games that play differently is much better then having two identical games in different settings.
Badablack wrote: Age of Sigmar is fun, cheap and perfectly balanced for what it is doing. It is the Orks of tabletop miniature games, happy and at peace with what it is, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth only fuels its ascension as Perfect Game.
One can only hope other tabletop companies look to GW, the perverted old uncle of the gaming industry, and copy their winning formula in their own products.
Infinity? Poof, gone, replaced with a stripped down version with none of those unnecessary shooting mechanics or anime waifus . Malifaux? Now it's cyberpunk. Warmachine? Melt all those poorly fitting metal models into hexagonal bases for the Big New Game.
Age of Sigmar is the Battletech Clans, bringing order and superior PPCs to the diseased husk of the Inner Sphere that tabletop gaming has devolved into.
Age of Sigmar is the Battletech Clans, bringing order and superior PPCs to the diseased husk of the Inner Sphere that tabletop gaming has devolved into.
funny you should mention battletech. Some time ago FASA closed their doors and gave the battletech IP to Wizkids, (owned, at the time, by Jordan Weissman, son of the owner of FASA and actually one of his founders. widely credited as the mind behind battletech and shadowrun) now Weisman, decided part of the problem with battletech's declining popularity was the complexity of the rules set, combined with 20+ years of in game history, both of these factors being turn offs to potential new gamers. so Wizkids launches Mechwarrior Dark Age. as a CMG, using their their popular click base format. the game is a novelty for a little bit, but in time dies off. the new blood has nothing keeping them hooked in, and the old blood largely has no intreast in the game (it helped that Fanpro was lisencing the classic game and continueing to publish it. ) it's why I'm so skeptical about AoS. the "let's dumb the rules down and do a time jump to allow new players a frensh entry point" idea has been tried before, it's failed.
All I know, is that I am glad AoS happened.if only because whfb was horrible in my area. Learning to play I bit the bullet and bought VC and spent WAY more than I wanted because the players at the local shop said I would need extra zombies, and necromancers because meta. After finishing I brought my army in and wasn't allowed to play with them because I had no movement trays. My fault so I checked their prices, and promptly cut some sheet metal and made my own. I go in with my cool trays, and wasn't allowed to use them because they might scratch the table.
Once again I leave, making tray 2.0 with magnetized strip and felt bottom.
Come back in and get stomped into the ground over the period of 2 months, no mercy, just pain.
Went in a week ago and everyone was quiet, I pull out my vampires and say "anyone wanna play AoS" felt good to see them angry and frustrated over the new format.
I consider it karma that AoS happened. Hopefully the bad players stop their elitism and learn to not br dicks.
Also, it's still fun, although I'm gonna rebase everything in round bases which isn't going to be fun.
Maybe AoS is Gw's way to fix the playerbase, toxic, powergaming, min maxing, "what's fluff I can take nothing but wave serpents but the lore is important to me I hate stupid armylists" players
I bet it would cause the smug players to stop being donkey-caves.
The internet says it's the end of the world, and it has ruined the entire hobby, and it's unplayably broken, while at my FLGS it's business as usual, but with AOS being played instead of Fantasy. I'm seeing more "balanced" games, even with the store banning unofficial balancing methods such as Wounds, less rules disputes, and all in all more people buying AOS related products.
I still haven't heard anyone at my FLGS say AOS has anything wrong with it, except for the random WAAC players who walk in and bait the manager.
Maybe AoS is Gw's way to fix the playerbase, toxic, powergaming, min maxing, "what's fluff I can take nothing but wave serpents but the lore is important to me I hate stupid armylists" players
I bet it would cause the smug players to stop being donkey-caves.
No, its a power gamer's paradise. Expect worse to come. The cheese has been unleashed, and casual players will run in terror.
Maybe AoS is Gw's way to fix the playerbase, toxic, powergaming, min maxing, "what's fluff I can take nothing but wave serpents but the lore is important to me I hate stupid armylists" players
I bet it would cause the smug players to stop being donkey-caves.
No, its a power gamer's paradise. Expect worse to come. The cheese has been unleashed, and casual players will run in terror.
Your own smugness does you no favors.
From most of the BatReps I have read both players have been trying to make balanced forces. I do not recall a single BatRep of 50 Greater Deamons vs 50 Slave rats or anything like that.
It's doing really well here too. The reaction of most players is that the game is "fun". But I think each area is different.
Fun is something 40K hasn't been in quite some time. Going back to more of a RT model would potentially isolate many, but it would make the game a lot more fun - if you have the right opponents. It seems like most criticism of Age of Sigmar is just solved by playing with different opponents.
But I bet most 40K players weren't even born when RT came out. That was a different time.
Mez
As someone who has been playing that long I will say that even Rogue Trader had more controls and balance than AoS does. At least it had point costs for things, sure you could field what you wanted early on, but it wasn't whatever you wanted for absolutely free. Also once more than just the Rogue Trader rulebook were out all armies started getting actual army lists too, so again not even remotely the same as AoS. All that was really lacking was the eventual FoC concepts to keep people from always just bringing a bunch of elite type units to every game and never bringing any normal troop type units. If AoS was closer to Rogue Trader I might actually like it.
The problem with Fantasy was bigger than just the price of kits or rules. WHFB had gotten to the point that to have a viable army required you to buy so many more models and it simply reached the point where that barrier to entry was too prohibitive for people just starting out. Even still for all the effort the vast majority of models only contributed to the game as wound counters with a few random heroes contributing more than all those other minis combined.
AoS has problems, but it solves the systemic issues that WHFB had that really couldn't be resolved with just an update.
Of course AoS solves some of the systemic issues by totally throwing the whole concept out the window. Battlefront did that too when they went from 1st edition to 2nd edition in Flames of War, but in their case they abandoned methods and concepts that were not fully adaptable to the game moving forward and instead released a BETTER game in its 2nd edition. 3rd edition was focused on problem areas that players had been discussing and highlighting for sometime on Battlefronts forums, so they fixed those problem areas, while not messing with the parts that worked and again released a BETTER game. Now look at GW, 30 years of production on WHFB and then they release AoS. It is not an improvement over WHFB. It is not a culmination of 30 years of game design. It is a lazy and cheap cop-out that leaves it totally to the players to fix its holes and try to add some real balance to the game. This is a typical GW completely ignore fixing problems and instead replace them with new problems.
AoS is now cheap to get into compared to WHFB, but heroes are even more overpowered now, because while WHFB didn't have perfect balance, AoS has no balance at all.
I agree with all of this. I will say that I hope they dont every do AOS to 40k the way AOS stands now.
Maybe AoS is Gw's way to fix the playerbase, toxic, powergaming, min maxing, "what's fluff I can take nothing but wave serpents but the lore is important to me I hate stupid armylists" players
I bet it would cause the smug players to stop being donkey-caves.
No, its a power gamer's paradise. Expect worse to come. The cheese has been unleashed, and casual players will run in terror.
Your own smugness does you no favors.
From most of the BatReps I have read both players have been trying to make balanced forces. I do not recall a single BatRep of 50 Greater Deamons vs 50 Slave rats or anything like that.
I would simply add a "yet" to your statement. It is just a matter of time before we start hearing horror stories. If your system depends on everyone being a decent person than you have already failed.
Maybe AoS is Gw's way to fix the playerbase, toxic, powergaming, min maxing, "what's fluff I can take nothing but wave serpents but the lore is important to me I hate stupid armylists" players
I bet it would cause the smug players to stop being donkey-caves.
No, its a power gamer's paradise. Expect worse to come. The cheese has been unleashed, and casual players will run in terror.
Your own smugness does you no favors.
From most of the BatReps I have read both players have been trying to make balanced forces. I do not recall a single BatRep of 50 Greater Deamons vs 50 Slave rats or anything like that.
Likely because in every case that has happened the person with the slaves has packed up and left.
Maybe AoS is Gw's way to fix the playerbase, toxic, powergaming, min maxing, "what's fluff I can take nothing but wave serpents but the lore is important to me I hate stupid armylists" players
I bet it would cause the smug players to stop being donkey-caves.
No, its a power gamer's paradise. Expect worse to come. The cheese has been unleashed, and casual players will run in terror.
Your own smugness does you no favors.
From most of the BatReps I have read both players have been trying to make balanced forces. I do not recall a single BatRep of 50 Greater Deamons vs 50 Slave rats or anything like that.
Likely because in every case that has happened the person with the slaves has packed up and left.
And after that happens a few times TFG will have to rethink things if he want to ever play again.
Lanrak wrote: Compare A.O.S objectively to other free rule sets for fantasy battles.Then tell me it is a good move.
Or even compare A.O.S to the rules for Mordhiem or LoTR for more narrative focused gaming .
Then you may see why so many gamers are being negative about A.O.S rules...
Both of those things you suggested are totally opinion based. You might not like the rules, or the lack of narrative gaming, but that does not change the fact that people enjoy the game. Like said earlier in the thread AoS is selling really well. Much better than 17% GW profit Fantasy had been.
The dropping of the "To Hit" and "To Wound" charts is a great bonus for new players.
I like how the basic rules are simple, and the complicated rules on are the unit's warscroll.
I like the free rules ($50 army books is why I stopped playing GW games).
I don't like the lack of points.
I don't like the unit sizes being from 1 to however many you bought.
I think if GW tightens the army list construction and figures out some way to balance it, it could be a good thing for 40k
But unleashing current AoS-style rules on 40k would be a disaster.
I'm sad fantasy is gone, but I think AoS was generally a smart idea by GW. Plus, I've bought more Dark Elves than I have in years due to me starting KoW. Say whatever you will about GW's rules, their plastic kits are still some of the best.
I think eventually GW will have rules for 40k that are AoS-style, but it's not ready yet. Maybe if they iron out all the wrinkles with a few editions of fantasy first. Maybe fantasy is the beta test for 40k.
Lanrak wrote: Compare A.O.S objectively to other free rule sets for fantasy battles.Then tell me it is a good move.
Or even compare A.O.S to the rules for Mordhiem or LoTR for more narrative focused gaming .
Then you may see why so many gamers are being negative about A.O.S rules...
Both of those things you suggested are totally opinion based. You might not like the rules, or the lack of narrative gaming, but that does not change the fact that people enjoy the game. Like said earlier in the thread AoS is selling really well. Much better than 17% GW profit Fantasy had been.
Do you actually have numbers for that? Besides, starter sets and new editions always sell well for GW. A bunch of people bought into 8th - I know I did - and Island of Blood. And look where GW took that enthusiasm.
MWHistorian wrote: Are we confusing "TFG WAAC" for "wanting a fair chance of winning?" Because that seems to be the general opinion with AOS players.
Not at all.
It come down to this. If someone wants to only play WAAC and he starts to have a problem finding people to play he has to make a choice.
>Adjust his thinking
>Stop being able to find people who will play with him.
I am fully aware that there is not "Mechanical Balance" in AoS. That is part of why I and others like it. We have to interact with people and find out what they want to do and then see if it is what you want to do. Then you two come up with something you both enjoy or you go find another sand box to play in.
This is no different than when we all played in the dirt with little plastic green army men yelling "Bang Bang" and then arguing about weather the Radio Guy killed the Bazooka Guy off. It is now we added a dice rolling phase in there some place.
And what did you did when the two of you did agree, you got into a fight, played a different game or moved onto someone who played the way you did.
It has been that way since 40k B.C. when were playing with rocks and sticks and it is going to be that way in 40k A.D.
The problem becomes self correcting at some point. Groups are going to break up and create groups from those who left their groups. All wanting to play the same kind of game. I have experienced it for all of my 5 decades. With my Medieval Recreation Group, my D&D Group, my BattleTech Group and even my 40k group.
I personally like the idea of a AoS version of 40k, but it has nothing to do with the rules changes or the lost of FOCs or no longer having points to balance things (We sort of did that on our own with my current group). It will have to do with that fact I now need to do something with all books that will just be taking up space on my shelf.
[Rant Over]
What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?
That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFGWAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.
Blacksails wrote: What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?
That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFGWAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.
The advantage, WE get to decide what a balanced game it. If We can't figure out what a balanced game is without a points then maybe...well I don't know what for someone other than ME. I know after 2.5 decades of 40k when I look at army I am facing if I have a chance and that is without looking at a list. The only time I am unsure is that first few games against the new codex, but after that I can usually eyeball if I am going to get MY kicked or am I going to do the kicking.
Blacksails wrote: What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?
That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFGWAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.
The advantage, WE get to decide what a balanced game it. If We can't figure out what a balanced game is without a points then maybe...well I don't know what for someone other than ME. I know after 2.5 decades of 40k when I look at army I am facing if I have a chance and that is without looking at a list. The only time I am unsure is that first few games against the new codex, but after that I can usually eyeball if I am going to get MY kicked or am I going to do the kicking.
So...40k does a crap job of balancing points and games become predictable?
Why not have the points for people that want to use them and then not use points for people that don't...kind of like how it's always been. (As opposed to alienating a large portion of the potential customers.)
Besides. Outside the GW bubble, other games use points far more effectively and are even acceptably balanced.
Blacksails wrote: What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?
That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFGWAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.
The advantage, WE get to decide what a balanced game it. If We can't figure out what a balanced game is without a points then maybe...well I don't know what for someone other than ME. I know after 2.5 decades of 40k when I look at army I am facing if I have a chance and that is without looking at a list. The only time I am unsure is that first few games against the new codex, but after that I can usually eyeball if I am going to get MY kicked or am I going to do the kicking.
You can do all that with a points system anyways.
Not really an advantage unique to a system like AoS.
My question is what advantages exist in the likes of AoS that do not or can not exist in a well implemented points system or alternative method of balance.
Blacksails wrote: What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?
That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFGWAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.
The advantage, WE get to decide what a balanced game it. If We can't figure out what a balanced game is without a points then maybe...well I don't know what for someone other than ME. I know after 2.5 decades of 40k when I look at army I am facing if I have a chance and that is without looking at a list. The only time I am unsure is that first few games against the new codex, but after that I can usually eyeball if I am going to get MY kicked or am I going to do the kicking.
So...40k does a crap job of balancing points and games become predictable?
Why not have the points for people that want to use them and then not use points for people that don't...kind of like how it's always been. (As opposed to alienating a large portion of the potential customers.)
Besides. Outside the GW bubble, other games use points far more effectively and are even acceptably balanced.
What I am saying is we don't NEED a point system to have a fair and balanced game. The points are just a tool to help us.
I can eyeball my Core Space Wolf Army and then put on my add on units and 9 times out of 10 be within 100 points of the points limit and I can usually do that with my normal opponent's army.
So with the people I play with we really don't need to figure out our list down to the last Melta-Bomb.
Now for Tournaments that is a different story, but AoS is not for Tournament, it to go out and have fun with. If you have to worry about some TFG being TFG, maybe you are trying to have Fun with the wrong people.
So...no advantage to using a system with no points over one with points then?
Because in a system that has points, you're always free to just ignore them and eyeball things anyways.
In other words, a system that uses a well designed system of points and balancing caters to a wider variety of people and styles of gaming than one without points.
Blacksails wrote: What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?
That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFGWAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.
The advantage, WE get to decide what a balanced game it. If We can't figure out what a balanced game is without a points then maybe...well I don't know what for someone other than ME. I know after 2.5 decades of 40k when I look at army I am facing if I have a chance and that is without looking at a list. The only time I am unsure is that first few games against the new codex, but after that I can usually eyeball if I am going to get MY kicked or am I going to do the kicking.
So...40k does a crap job of balancing points and games become predictable?
Why not have the points for people that want to use them and then not use points for people that don't...kind of like how it's always been. (As opposed to alienating a large portion of the potential customers.)
Besides. Outside the GW bubble, other games use points far more effectively and are even acceptably balanced.
What I am saying is we don't NEED a point system to have a fair and balanced game. The points are just a tool to help us.
I can eyeball my Core Space Wolf Army and then put on my add on units and 9 times out of 10 be within 100 points of the points limit and I can usually do that with my normal opponent's army.
So with the people I play with we really don't need to figure out our list down to the last Melta-Bomb.
Now for Tournaments that is a different story, but AoS is not for Tournament, it to go out and have fun with. If you have to worry about some TFG being TFG, maybe you are trying to have Fun with the wrong people.
It's not about TFG's, it's about normal people that have different ideas of what 'fair' is. Without a basic measuring system to decide what's fair, it's hard for a new player (arguably who this system is targeted for) to judge what's fair.
I can eyeball my Core Space Wolf Army and then put on my add on units and 9 times out of 10 be within 100 points of the points limit and I can usually do that with my normal opponent's army.
I would say this is because you are intimately familiar with all your army's point costs to the point where you can make a list of X points pretty much without even looking anything up. I can do the same with my GKs.
That just strengthens the case for a point system.
Anpu42 wrote: Let me try this...
Yes there is a need for a points system, but there is no NEED for a points system. That what I am trying to say.
In some sort of philosophical way, sure.
In the real world, as I've been trying to get across, there are only upsides to a reasonably well implemented point system that helps all kinds of play styles and formats.
A system without points is just lazy, minimal effort writing.
Anpu42 wrote: Let me try this...
Yes there is a need for a points system, but there is no NEED for a points system. That what I am trying to say.
That is contradictory.
And even if we ignore the point vs no points system, the AoS rules are total gak.
I mean, the special rules are a complete joke. Something my 5 year old self would have made up. Actually, my 5 year old self would have probably written better rules.
Just read Lietdorf's rule. Thats just plain unacceptable.
Blacksails wrote: What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?
That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFGWAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.
None really.
I just see it as a different style of play. No more, no less. No better, no worse. We play point-less scenarios using flames of war, and often once-off, themed and home brewed scenarios. Aos as a game is not interesting to me, the methodology behind it - in ways, I'm sympathetic.
Thing is, you can do this with well designed, well balanced systems but there is far less impetus and requirement to do so. There is less of an onus on you to 'create' and 'take control'. And it's far easier having an ultimate authority (ie iron clad rules etc) that simply tells you precisely how to behave and play. It takes your responsibilities as a player out if your hands. In ways, this is necessary. It's a good thing to have a precisely defined common ground.
Games like aos require/force the players to step up and take the reins of their games. Otherwise it simply will not work. Some people like being in control of their gaming. This is not a bad thing.
I can see why a non-points system would be attractive to GW. All you need to do is listen to the way WE as a community talk about the units of 40k:
"Warp Talons are garbage" says Fred.
"Why do you say that?" asks Bill.
"Well, They have a special blind ability on deep strike that will hardly ever be useful because deep strike scatter makes it dangerous to attempt, and they don't have any grenades to speak of. Other than that, they're power armor jump infantry with dual lightning claws and a 5+ invul save." Fred answers.
"Power armor jump infantry with dual lightning claws and a 5+ invul save? That sounds pretty great, actually." retorts Bill.
"Yeah...well I didn't tell ya the worst part. They're 30pts per model." Fred explains.
"Bah...Warp talons are garbage" Bill exclaims in disgust.
/end scene
So....It's pretty easy to see why GW may think taking points out of the game is a decent idea when they spend a bunch of time and money making great kits that end up gathering dusts in warehouses and on shelves. Yeah...I know...they should give those models better rules or a different point value, you say, but hey...we'll always complain that something is more efficient than something else, and a group of models will always be the red-headed step-children that don't get the respect they deserve.
Except they've just guaranteed they'll never be taken. I'll just take as many of the best thing I can afford $$ wise. I won't waste money on Warp Talons when I can just run a bazillion Oblits.
So....It's pretty easy to see why GW may think taking points out of the game is a decent idea when they spend a bunch of time and money making great kits that end up gathering dusts in warehouses and on shelves. Yeah...I know...they should give those models better rules or a different point value, you say, but hey...we'll always complain that something is more efficient than something else, and a group of models will always be the red-headed step-children that don't get the respect they deserve.
That something can always be improved and that someone will always complain is not a compelling argument to not do that thing at all.
Voidwraith wrote: I can see why a non-points system would be attractive to GW. All you need to do is listen to the way WE as a community talk about the units of 40k:
"Warp Talons are garbage" says Fred.
"Why do you say that?" asks Bill.
"Well, They have a special blind ability on deep strike that will hardly ever be useful because deep strike scatter makes it dangerous to attempt, and they don't have any grenades to speak of. Other than that, they're power armor jump infantry with dual lightning claws and a 5+ invul save." Fred answers.
"Power armor jump infantry with dual lightning claws and a 5+ invul save? That sounds pretty great, actually." retorts Bill.
"Yeah...well I didn't tell ya the worst part. They're 30pts per model." Fred explains.
"Bah...Warp talons are garbage" Bill exclaims in disgust.
/end scene
So....It's pretty easy to see why GW may think taking points out of the game is a decent idea when they spend a bunch of time and money making great kits that end up gathering dusts in warehouses and on shelves. Yeah...I know...they should give those models better rules or a different point value, you say, but hey...we'll always complain that something is more efficient than something else, and a group of models will always be the red-headed step-children that don't get the respect they deserve.
It would be better and easier to just redo the points on the Warp Talons.
So....It's pretty easy to see why GW may think taking points out of the game is a decent idea when they spend a bunch of time and money making great kits that end up gathering dusts in warehouses and on shelves. Yeah...I know...they should give those models better rules or a different point value, you say, but hey...we'll always complain that something is more efficient than something else, and a group of models will always be the red-headed step-children that don't get the respect they deserve.
That something can always be improved and that someone will always complain is not a compelling argument to not do that thing at all.
I'm really not advocating for no points, I was just saying I could understand why GW would go away from points based on how we deal with the current points system.
Also, we may have a point system in 40k, but GW really sucks at implementing and balancing it. How great does it feel for every codex other than Eldar that their Jetbikes and Super-heavy Lord of War are criminally undercosted? If, in an effort to sell more kits, the aforementioned Warp Talon was updated to cost 15pts per model, would that seem fair to assault marines everywhere?? Yeah...I want there to be a point system in 40k, but I want it to be fair. Right now...it's pretty garbage, and I don't feel worth defending.
I had a game awhile back where my buddy accidentally played with 500ish more points than he should have, and we had a great game despite the lop-sided-ness. I didn't even notice until I was rethinking the game much much later. At the time, I felt cheated, but hey...it was an accident and we had FUN. Since then...I try not to min/max as much and just play with the models I want to play with. Yeah...I still stay within the points limit...but I have more fun now that I'm playing with the models that got me in the game rather than what seems to be most efficient.
the current points system is not really a good thing.
Many armies have a 1 up on abilities/units for the pts cost than others, and some units are pointed -oddly- and you will just never see them played because of it.
You may think a no points system is scary and bad, but the current system is also bad. In some cases, worse.
Yeah GW could tweak points here and there, but either they do not care, are bad at it, or are motivated by changing points for sales and not balance- because after 7 editions they still have problems with armies and units that have bad points/effectiveness compared to others.
I'm really not advocating for no points, I was just saying I could understand why GW would go away from points based on how we deal with the current points system.
Well, we all know that GW often makes certain decisions for all the wrong reasons, eh? I do agree with you that its a reason I know GW would cite, but I think its laughable at best.
Also, we may have a point system in 40k, but GW really sucks at implementing and balancing it. How great does it feel for every codex other than Eldar that their Jetbikes and Super-heavy Lord of War are criminally undercosted? If, in an effort to sell more kits, the aforementioned Warp Talon was updated to cost 15pts per model, would that seem fair to assault marines everywhere?? Yeah...I want there to be a point system in 40k, but I want it to be fair. Right now...it's pretty garbage, and I don't feel worth defending.
Oh, I agree the current balance is way off. I have never defended the current point system in any way, quite the opposite really.
I had a game awhile back where my buddy accidentally played with 500ish more points than he should have, and we had a great game despite the lop-sided-ness. I didn't even notice until I was rethinking the game much much later. At the time, I felt cheated, but hey...it was an accident and we had FUN. Since then...I try not to min/max as much and just play with the models I want to play with. Yeah...I still stay within the points limit...but I have more fun now that I'm playing with the models that got me in the game rather than what seems to be most efficient.
I've always done that for my games. I look for efficiency within a theme or using models I want to paint/see on the table. Its a reasonable compromise I've found.
Grey Templar wrote:I say its worse if its accompanied by shoddy rules.
I suppose nothing inherently prevents a pointless system(hehehe) from working, but I can't see any way for it to work outside of fixed lists.
No argument there grey. That said think less 'fixed lists' and more 'themed lists'. For me, it's less about putting down whatever I want and more about putting down what makes sense within the context of the theme, and what's appropriate. And let's say you do, and it doesn't work. You've lost a bit of time. Then you take it onboard and adjust it for the next game. We do it all the time in our games. It takes time though and isn't really suitable if all you've got is two hours on a Saturday afternoon.
MWHistorian wrote:
Which sounds incredibly boring. I like the freedom points gives me.
Dont knock it mwh- it can be fun. total freedom is fine, but do the best you can with what you've got to hand and themed missions also has a place
Grey Templar wrote:I say its worse if its accompanied by shoddy rules.
I suppose nothing inherently prevents a pointless system(hehehe) from working, but I can't see any way for it to work outside of fixed lists.
No argument there grey. That said think less 'fixed lists' and more 'themed lists'. For me, it's less about putting down whatever I want and more about putting down what makes sense within the context of the theme, and what's appropriate. And let's say you do, and it doesn't work. You've lost a bit of time. Then you take it onboard and adjust it for the next game. We do it all the time in our games. It takes time though and isn't really suitable if all you've got is two hours on a Saturday afternoon.
Yeah, but really its a waste of time for players to have to hash out how the rules are actually going to work before a game.
No other game makes you decide on rules to actually play the game.
If you and I sit down to play chess, we're going to play chess. There is no rule ambiguity. I could play chess with someone from China, neither of us speaking the other's language.
Wyzilla wrote: Great? How the hell is having godawful rules, no points system, entire armies squatted, terrible fluff, boring models, and completely killing any real strategy "good"? AOS is complete gak, if it came to 40K I'd want to see nothing but GW finally implode and go bankrupt, thus hopefully allowing some other company to pick up the 40K IP rather than have the entire model range wiped out for incredibly generic models.
Also, just because something is free doesn't make it good. The trash outside a restaurant is free, doesn't mean you should it- it's still garbage.
I find myself agreeing with this, AoS is and will be utter nonsense. Not that I expected anything else from GW whom killed of WHFB whom had a wonderful depth, feel an acutal likebal setting going for it. Instead of the sorry ecuse they dumped on us with AoS
Indeed. That is the funny thing. The AoS fluff isn't terrible, I could get into the premise. It opens up new horizons for the fluff to take, but its just got a gakky game to go with it.
It's awesome how quickly any AoS thread finds the same group of people to derail and argue with anyone who likes the game. Like chum to the waters!
Back to the topic of the thread, until 40K drops in profitability I don't see any need/possibility to totally revamp the system. The game plays well enough as-is and people are still into the game.
Fantasy was clearly a less popular franchise for GW prior to AoS, so a total shake-up of the rules may have been the ticket to put a fresh take on the game in front of players faces.
"Superior" is entirely subjective. Like it or not, you can't declare a ruleset is better because you like it more.
Many new players and younger kids are able to enjoy AoS because the rules are more simple. Some people don't want to spend 3 to 4 hours learning rules before playing a (what appears to be) boardgame.
There is an entire gaming community outside of Dakka to take into account, not just what we see on forums.
If people think this is a "board game" they should be corrected and not catered to. Wargaming is not a board game, and it shouldn't even try to cater to the simpler minded crowd.
If people want to learn a wargame, they should learn a wargame and not some watered down version of a wargame.
You can, however, judge a ruleset by the quality of the writing, and how well it achieves the goals or desired gameplay through its rules.
How clear the rules are, how simple they are in conveying the instructions, the level of balance, the quality and diversity of scenarios, and how well the game delivers on its intended style of play are all measures you can reasonably assess to determine how good the game is. Same goes for other things, like movies, music, and video games. You can still enjoy what is generally considered to be a sub-par product, but it doesn't make it less sub-par, just a sub-par product you happen to like for whatever reasons. Like the Super Mario Bros movie. Terrible in every sense, but enjoyable none-the-less.
As a 40k player since 3rd... I really like AOS. The rules are streamlined, simple, and its easy to get into fantasy now without a major investment (I had never gotten into fantasy besides buying a few cool models). I played a game tonight that was 5 models per side (mostly hero models I had collected because they were cool sculpts). If you build armies by counting wounds the games are pretty fair.
I know fantasy was dying at pretty much every game store, and 40k is very healthy right now around here. I have seen a good amount of fantasy players start AOS and a good amount of 40k players buying fantasy kits now. The games I have seen played were all about fun, no power gamers. It seems like AOS is the first 'unbound' style game where you play what you want that people are having fun with (great models, broken faction barriers, and free rules help - that app is amazing too).
From what I've seen more fantasy kits are selling. I feel bad for old fantasy lovers but from what I've seen this won't be the end of GW... it was a smart move on their part.
I don't see 40k ever going this route unless the game starts to die like fantasy was. I wouldn't doubt that the HH box set coming out is similar to aos as a small skirmish game/kill squad game. I know many conventions are only going away from GW to box games/board games, and AOS fits this format. This would mean the HH game would make sense as a AOS type game.
40k isn't going anywhere though, fear not brothers!
You can bet your entire 40k collection that if the big egg heads at GW are pleased with how AoS turns out they will do the same to 40k. They have stated all along that they are in the business of selling models first, and 40k is supposed to be a beer and pretzels game. Well that is exactly what AoS is, a super casual beer and snacks game 'where the rules are made up and the points don't matter!'
Honestly not having played 40k in well over a year, I wouldn't mind a rules reset. 40k has become far to complicated.
And I think the decurion formations and army builds are probably testing and preparation for war scrolls.
What people need to realise about AoS and its 'success', is that it is a new product in a honeymoon phase. Many Warhammer players will tend to buy it causing a current spike in sales. It remains to be seen whether it has any staying power, and frankly I suspect not.
SickSix wrote: You can bet your entire 40k collection that if the big egg heads at GW are pleased with how AoS turns out they will do the same to 40k. They have stated all along that they are in the business of selling models first, and 40k is supposed to be a beer and pretzels game. .
What are those pretzels made out of, solid gold? A B&P is something you can buy on an evening play once, maybe twice and never play it again. w40k armies cost around 500-600$ for 1500pts on avarge. Few cost less, a lot cost a lot more. w40k is not a B&P game. It wasn't one in 5th, when I started to play and from what I heard from vets it was not one in 4th or 3ed edition.
SickSix wrote: You can bet your entire 40k collection that if the big egg heads at GW are pleased with how AoS turns out they will do the same to 40k. They have stated all along that they are in the business of selling models first, and 40k is supposed to be a beer and pretzels game. .
What are those pretzels made out of, solid gold? A B&P is something you can buy on an evening play once, maybe twice and never play it again. w40k armies cost around 500-600$ for 1500pts on avarge. Few cost less, a lot cost a lot more. w40k is not a B&P game. It wasn't one in 5th, when I started to play and from what I heard from vets it was not one in 4th or 3ed edition.
You misunderstand. 'Beer and pretzels' was never an economic statement. It is a rules statement, as in they never intended or really wanted 40k to be a competitive game.
Pulling the AoS on 40k at least rules wise would definitely kill the competition element of 40k.
Also, fluff wise, 40k is rope for a reboot. Unlike Fantasy 40k has literally been in the 'end times' forever. So killing the emperor and throwing the whole setting into chaos would be super easy and well, fluffy.
SickSix wrote: You can bet your entire 40k collection that if the big egg heads at GW are pleased with how AoS turns out they will do the same to 40k. They have stated all along that they are in the business of selling models first, and 40k is supposed to be a beer and pretzels game. .
What are those pretzels made out of, solid gold? A B&P is something you can buy on an evening play once, maybe twice and never play it again. w40k armies cost around 500-600$ for 1500pts on avarge. Few cost less, a lot cost a lot more. w40k is not a B&P game. It wasn't one in 5th, when I started to play and from what I heard from vets it was not one in 4th or 3ed edition.
You misunderstand. 'Beer and pretzels' was never an economic statement. It is a rules statement, as in they never intended or really wanted 40k to be a competitive game.
Pulling the AoS on 40k at least rules wise would definitely kill the competition element of 40k.
Also, fluff wise, 40k is rope for a reboot. Unlike Fantasy 40k has literally been in the 'end times' forever. So killing the emperor and throwing the whole setting into chaos would be super easy and well, fluffy.
I would love to see an advancement in the plot, you're right that the story has been revolving around the same sense of impending doom for ages. "Emperor is dying, Tyranids are coming, Necrons will all wake up, Eldar legends of apocalypse will come true."
It would be awesome for some or all of these to come true eventually. It would not really require a rules reboot, but I could see some big changes being coupled with it.
GW is a capitalist organisation. 40k is their best seller. They won't risk that until the point where there is no choice. They ditched WFB because it wasn't bringing in anywhere near the amount of money as profit. Whether you think they should have rebooted it, gone back to 4th, 5th, 6th edition whatever, (personally I liked 4th and have never felt the need to play any other edition), you've got to remember that they're beholden ONLY to the shareholders. Morally of course, it's us who pay the money and they should be catering to our needs a bit too because if we all stop buying their gak then the shareholders are going to get annoyed...
where was I? shareholders, right. so a shareholder expects the value of his shares to rise year on year. WHFB wasn't doing this. Will Age Of Sigmar? feth knows, but the risk needed to be taken. if it works then everyone's happy.
So will the AOS40K? they would if they had to. it's highly unlikely that they will have to for quite some time yet. What's most likely is that will spend a couple of years supporting AOS whilst trying out other things - 30k, for e.g., another 40k skirmish game similar to necromunda perhaps, other games to rinse money out of the 40k players whilst they think of another thing to do with the fantasy IP. as long as 40k is their biggest seller they won't do anything with it. if AoS takes over and becomes 75% of their business then they'll do something to 40k PDQ!
Grey Templar wrote: If people think this is a "board game" they should be corrected and not catered to. Wargaming is not a board game, and it shouldn't even try to cater to the simpler minded crowd.
If people want to learn a wargame, they should learn a wargame and not some watered down version of a wargame.
So let them eat cake?
Why shouldn't they be catered to? If there is an audience, there is space for a product/game.
Speaking of board games, Space hulk and hero quest verged perilously close to being 'board games'. And they were bloody good fun. If anything, they can act as a gateway game.
You might not intend it grey, but that post of yours comes across as extremely condasdcending, unwelcoming, snobbish and elitist. You're better than that.
So, I love the introduction of AoS. It's a great game. Although, I would have liked two variants of playing the game. (One as the current AoS, and one as 8th Fantasy)
However, if they do end up doing the same thing to 40k, it would be the equivalent of committing seppuku. It would destroy their business.
People need something to hold onto in terms of competition and structure. The points system in 40k supplies that.
If GW figures out they can sell more models in 40k if they go AoS it will happen. However selling overpriced codex and rule books is easy money for GW, copy paste changes a few points and your done. It will be intresting in the next year to see if GW changes the direction of 40k.
Grey Templar wrote: If people think this is a "board game" they should be corrected and not catered to. Wargaming is not a board game, and it shouldn't even try to cater to the simpler minded crowd.
If people want to learn a wargame, they should learn a wargame and not some watered down version of a wargame.
So let them eat cake?
Why shouldn't they be catered to? If there is an audience, there is space for a product/game.
Speaking of board games, Space hulk and hero quest verged perilously close to being 'board games'. And they were bloody good fun. If anything, they can act as a gateway game.
You might not intend it grey, but that post of yours comes across as extremely condasdcending, unwelcoming, snobbish and elitist. You're better than that.
You are correct. It was unintended.
I'm just super salty about the AoS rules. Anyone who likes them should feel ashamed. I could have made better rules when I was 5.
Maybe not as dramatically as the fantasy-AoS transition. But I think you can already see 40K starting to hop in the direction that AoS took a flying leap to land at. Formations that make points less meaningful by giving you a pile of free stuff, more and more randomness, and less and less attention paid to balance on an assumption that the players will filter out the broken stuff through social contracts / shaming.
Thing is, you can do this with well designed, well balanced systems but there is far less impetus and requirement to do so. There is less of an onus on you to 'create' and 'take control'. And it's far easier having an ultimate authority (ie iron clad rules etc) that simply tells you precisely how to behave and play. It takes your responsibilities as a player out if your hands. In ways, this is necessary. It's a good thing to have a precisely defined common ground.
Games like aos require/force the players to step up and take the reins of their games. Otherwise it simply will not work. Some people like being in control of their gaming. This is not a bad thing.
The problem is that you seem to completely miss the point that a game does not have to be a poorly written as AoS for players to take control of their gaming. Anyone who wants to can take a game like Flames of War and make it whatever they want to make it and house rule it until it is completely unrecognizable from the RAW. The difference is that the game is well written enough on its own that they don't NEED to do that if they don't want to. The root problem with AoS is that whether a player wants to take full control of the game and make it something they specifically want or not they have to do it anyway. That is where you argument falls down. Yeah AoS appeals specifically to a player who wants to do that with the game and make it their own, but it does not appeal to players who don't want to be forced to do that just to make the game playable.
To be fair, No I do not believe that the 40k rules as they currently stand do this much better than AoS, but they are a lot closer. It is easy to just nix the insane freebie units in detachments in one's group.
If GW would AoS40k, i would find that quite the horrible scenario i think.
And i hope that it does not happen because 40k still does quite allright; it is still the number 1 best selling wargame.
And X-Wing and Armada (2 and 3 on the list) do well at the moment (i play X-Wing myself), but it remains to be seen if those games still exist and, more importantly, will sell after a couple of years after introduction (i doubt it).
AoS as is, is not a game i will play again. Tried it, did not like it in this form.
Simple rules are only a good choice if the game also still has depth (like Epic, Warmaster, Blood Bowl, ...).
AoS even has a few mechanics that could go toward mechanics in Epic or Warmaster, but it still would need at least 1 page of extra rules to get it right and make the game interesting for me.
I am a player that wants a tactical challenge and i do not have any problems with more complex and bigger rulesets.
If 40k becomes a game where every unit does about the same like AoS, the best case would be that 40k would become like Epic and i already have (lots of) Epic, so 40k would become irrelevant.
I play WHFB since the time of 3rd/4th edition, have lots of armies and i liked the game (allthough never my favourite one) and 8th actually was my favourite edition except for the 6th spells. But we lost too many players.
I tried AoS and it's not for me. I hope it will become something i can play, otherwise we will stick to 8th edition.
I might buy a few miniatures i like, but that's it.
If the same thing happens to 40k, that would more or less mean the same.
Grey Templar wrote: ... and it shouldn't even try to cater to the simpler minded crowd.
There it is, thats the stuff! Alright, that'll do for me. Thanks for the laugh.
My point is that Wargaming isn't a board game. Why would it try to cater to the board game crowd?
I wouldn't go out and call any of the GW systems real "wargames" either. They're a bit more advanced beer & pretzel games. Fun, rather easy to learn, a bit costly, but far away from any true and realistic tabletop wargame.
Overall, AoS seems to have a decent impact on WHF miniatures. In the past 2-3 years it was dead in the store I usually play in. Now you can at least spot a few players sporting fantasy miniatures.
I can only cross my fingers they do! The fact that 40k is based on a fantasy statline (notice how WS, S, I, A are purely for melee?) that is now (thankfully!) obsolete with Age of Sigmar keeps me hoping that 40k will get the same fresh, new, free rules experience that Warhammer did.
Honestly at this point I think GW needs to do something drastic (like AoS) instead of just churning out more and more editions with the same messy core mechanics. They've financially been getting hurt for a while and crushed in the realm of public opinion by anyone who has ever played any other tabletop game.
bosky wrote: I can only cross my fingers they do! The fact that 40k is based on a fantasy statline (notice how WS, S, I, A are purely for melee?) that is now (thankfully!) obsolete with Age of Sigmar keeps me hoping that 40k will get the same fresh, new, free rules experience that Warhammer did.
Honestly at this point I think GW needs to do something drastic (like AoS) instead of just churning out more and more editions with the same messy core mechanics. They've financially been getting hurt for a while and crushed in the realm of public opinion by anyone who has ever played any other tabletop game.
They can do something drastic without pushing out an incomplete mess of a game.
Blacksails wrote: They can do something drastic without pushing out an incomplete mess of a game.
Free rules are welcome.
Incomplete, no balance mechanisms rules are not.
People are comparing it to an 8th edition game with years of development and tuning. I think it should more fairly be compared to the first edition of Warhammer, or better yet Rogue Trader (haha some classic stuff in there). It'll grow, be edited and updated, and improve with time. GW has never been a solid rule development company, but at least they're trying something new.
The problem is that you seem to completely miss the point that a game does not have to be a poorly written as AoS for players to take control of their gaming. Anyone who wants to can take a game like Flames of War and make it whatever they want to make it and house rule it until it is completely unrecognizable from the RAW. The difference is that the game is well written enough on its own that they don't NEED to do that if they don't want to. The root problem with AoS is that whether a player wants to take full control of the game and make it something they specifically want or not they have to do it anyway. That is where you argument falls down. Yeah AoS appeals specifically to a player who wants to do that with the game and make it their own, but it does not appeal to players who don't want to be forced to do that just to make the game playable.
I agree. Anyone can tweak any game. And yes, Aos requires that tweak. but You are also incorrect to an extent. It's not a 'problem'. It's a 'choice'. It's a choice by gw to design a game like this. (Cynically, you can also argue it also suits a company that wants to make a minimum effort investment). And that choice is neither wrong, not right. Just as pp chose to 'focus on the competitive gaming' aspect so prominent in warmachine - it attracts so many, it drives plenty away. In a similar vein, pp chose a certain set of aesthetics (ie big shoulder pads, and a cartoony world of Warcraft-ish over the top look) that attracts many. And drives many away as well. The choice to design something a certain way is just that: a choice. This is not wrong. It is no 'a problem'. A company is not required to produce a game that appeals to everyone. Thst thry don't is not 'a problem'.
Yes, you can make a 'lowest common denominator' type product with broad appeal. And you can also create a niche product with limited appeal for, shall we say, more 'refined', or 'specific' tastes. Or 'targeted' tastes. And simply put, the product they designed (ie Aos) is designed for them, not for you or even me. And that's ok. You and I call it a shallow game. It is. But bear in mind our perspective, and our bias. As wargamers, we are on the 'hardcore' side of it. We've played enough, and we've dived deep enough into it thst we know we want a deeper experience. We want deep, and subtle strategies, and clever, nuanced tactics. We want a 'clever' and intricate game. We are not wrong in wanting this. But we are at the deeper end of the pool. We are not representative of everyone, whether we talk about 'wargamers' and then we have the non wargamers who are potential players that outnumber us many, many times over. Plenty wargamers want the 'shallow dip'. Heck. Plenty non-wargamers don't want to dive into the deep end with us, and are happy to wade in the shallows. I'm sure plenty dads who enjoy the deep end probably have eight year old kids they want to teach. Are thry gonna chuck em in the deep end, or take them to the paddling pool? Aos tries to be their game. It's a shallow experience, but it's not wrong for being a shallow experience. We just have experienced enough that we want more. Just like Saturday morning cartoons. We loved them when we were kids, but if you go back now, and watch the cartoons you remember so fondly, you will quickly realise they are generally terrible and really shallow. But it's not meant for us, now.
To get back to your point, gw seemingly doesn't want to create a game that appeals to both sets of players. Or all players. Or to have a game that can work for both casual and competitive players. Maybe they think they can't do such a game? Maybe they think it's far more trouble than it's worth. So theyre appealing to a subset of players that want to be in the driving seat, and not the others? thats not necessarily a bad thing. Or a problem.It's a 'thing' but it's not a bad thing. Kind of like how warmachine appeals to some, and drives away as many. Gw are simpky focusing on a certain target audience. It may very well crash and burn too with this focus. It's a choice. Now whether the target audience exists, or whether it's big enough to support this is another question.
You talked about tweaking flames of war - that's precisely what we do with It.
And for what it's worth, I don't miss the point. If you want me to say it, I'll say it. Aos is a terrible game. See? As you say, it's 'poorly written'. I'll go one further - it's a terrible, boring, lazy and uninspired game that Is a complete and utter waste of potential. Thing is, I'm rather ambivalent to it. I never had anything tied up in warhammer fantasy. Never played it, never liked it, never cared to play it. So for me, I have no dog in the fight and no emotional baggage - I'm certain someone who'se played for years and has a dozen armies will feel quite different. To me, at the end of the day, aos really isnt all that interesting.
Aos doesn't bother me for the free-form, open ended army selection aspect, in fact, I am rather sympathetic to that angle. I play those types of games. Thryre fun. Where aos falls down, and where I lose any and all interest (aside from a model line I dislike...) is that the rules set is uninspired, and uninteresting. For me, infinity is the single most beautiful and sublime wargaming rules set out there. Technical, but functional, and in so many ways, simply inspired. Roll to hit, plus or minus modifiers. Roll to save against the power of the weapon, plus or minus modifiers. Reactions (ie it's always your turn)? Even with nothing else, infinity would have grabbed me for the sheer beauty of its game mechanics. Aos could have been saved by similarly clever mechanics. Even a four page set of rules can be interesting. They're not.
I hope note. Dumbed down rules, straight up stupid rules (if it's night time get +1, haha so funny), and mass destruction of fluff. If GW were to "AoS" 40k, it would take at least 5 years of a falling sales, much like the situation fantasy was in.
kicked or am I going to do the 
total freedom is fine, but do the best you can with what you've got to hand and themed missions also has a place
