I am a longtime lurker and very occasional poster on my favourite tabletop wargames - 40k followed by WHFB.

I have reserved my feelings regarding the death of WHFB (which I got into as a 12 year old) for a long time since the rumours surrounding the Age of Sigmar started appearing and eventually became reality. Even with the launch of the boxed set for AoS and the warscrolls, I continued to be optimistic - this could not be it. This could not be what GW leaves us with, particularly players who do not have a regular playgroup and look for pick up games. Surely there would be some ability to balance for this at some stage... usually the guys at Warhammer World can come up with something usable. I mean these were the guys who came up with a useful campaign ruleset for Killteam on their own.

Now I have seen the latest on the planned Age of Sigmar event on the Warhammer World event website which absolutely boggles the mind.

"The amount of time you have to play the game is the only real restriction so bring whatever you think would get you a great game in that time." This is ridiculous. Seriously. This is a complete abdication of the business' ability or want to balance the game.

I am even more alarmed by what they are doing for the Horus Heresy campaign weekend. The choice is 2000 points BUT there is no upper limit. It entirely depends on a nebulous restriction around what you think you can do within the time allotted per game. Seriously?!?!

I don't mind that the events are now basically marketing campaigns for the GW's games and are driven by favourite game votes. I GET it. You want sportsmanship to drive who WINS these events. I buy that. Horses for courses. But this latest development is ridiculous. I have seen the rumours that have been flagged on Natfka and by Hastings on how 40k may be Age of Sigmar'd. The fact that they are doing these events for AoS and also something similar for Horus Heresy is making me scared for my favourite game 40k. I dont want some ridiculous crap being pushed onto me by a games company that cannot be bothered with writing rules and leaves us to make it up on the fly. This is our chance to take a stand. Do NOT attend these events. There will always be guys buying the models but we need to send a message. It stops here - please do not mess with our 40k game. I have already lost WHFB - I DONT want to lose 40k.

Look some people will think I am alarmist. Some people will think that I have written a great crazy wall of text. Please be willing to digest what I have written. I am open to your views. I am just afraid of where GW is going with 40k. This is relevant to everyone who loves the 40k game as it is even if you are not in the UK and find it logistically to attend events at Nottingham. In that case highlight your views to the events team at Warhammer World. It's a drop of water but every drop counts. This is different to the usual threads where you convince people to "boycott" buying models - you cant reach the entire communnity easily. But people who go to events? Thats us. Thats why we need to open our mouths and vote with our wallets or an email. This may be the start of Age of Sigmarification for 40k and it is up us to do something about it.

Wait...the Horus Heresy event is a nebulous "2000+, dependent on time"?

Wow that's awful.

EDIT ok, here's what the event pack says.
http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/Horus-Heresy-Throne-of-Skulls-1.pdf

"At this event, the minimum size army you should bring
is 2,000 points, but, if you happen to have more than that,
bring it along and if your opponents are up for it, you
can play a larger game. In general, you should expect to
play 2,000 point games, and anything larger than that is
a bonus - there is no upper limit so feel free to bring as
much as you like, the only restriction is the amount of
time you have to play the game. "

So it looks like it's a more "play 2K, if both you and your opponent want to play 2.5K, you can play that". Not quite as bad, but still pretty wonky for a tournament.

You're taking a joke seriously.

The joke being Warhammer World Tournaments.

Noone takes GW tournaments seriously. A GW tournament without a rules pack? Yeah...no.

We need to be very careful with this. Warhammer World events after the refit look to be promoting the way that GW wants the games to be played.

The AoS event is a very good example of this. It is similar to the HH event in that you bring whatever you want but you and the opponent decide how many points you want to play...

Sounds familiar? I mean its one thing doing it for a game with friends you know well but in a campaign event / "tournament" where time is scarce? You already spend so much time determining mission objectives, explaining what your units do, etc. etc. now you have to negotiate points and what you bring to the table... This speaks to a trend that GW is heading with its products - i.e. selling premium toys with rules as incidental.

The HH event is one way to trial whether this works for 40k. AoS in itself is a trial for how 40k can go. So, please take it seriously.

Sigvatr there is a rules pack for the throne of skulls tournaments - they've just deteriorated after the warhammer world refit.

AoS indications of the rulespack link - http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2015/08/01/age-of-sigmar-the-battle-for-the-realmgates-what-should-i-bring/
HH event - http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2015/08/01/throne-of-skulls-the-horus-heresy/

First time this method is being trialled for a 40k style event.

Aye, old GW tournaments also had rulepacks. Slim ones, but they had ones. That was old GW though.

40k has already been Sigmar'd over the last decade, but it was so gradual that most people only caught on when Unbound dropped. There's nothing there worth saving, just like there wasn't in WHFB.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
40k has already been Sigmar'd over the last decade, but it was so gradual that most people only caught on when Unbound dropped. There's nothing there worth saving, just like there wasn't in WHFB.

True. Sad, but true.
:-(

I wonder if all those HH sprues will actually make an Age of Sigmar style game for 30k. If it sells well... then the next version of 40k will get the full on AoS treatment as well.

In the grim darkness of the near future, there is only bad rules.

I'm actually quite sure it will be. The clues are in the latest financials.

I know that I'll probably get hate for saying this, but I hope that 40k gets Age of Sigmar'd, it would certainly be an improvement over the current rules set.

I agree ! Having a blast with AOS with the rules from the play test groups here. Less GW has to do with rules the better. War Scrolls and loose rules are free so why complain? Forge your own narrative!

It's a sad state of affairs. The depth of the AoS isnt there. It will be fun for awhile but to me any initial "new game" shine wears out and what will be left - a shell of a once glorious game.

Um, wasn't WFB 40k'd though? Like, it seems like they went ahead and made WFB more like 40k, by turning it into AoS. And honestly it doesn't seem like you're the only one worried about them making 40k more like AoS...

So they took a game, made it more like the other, and now you're afraid they're gonna make the other more like the first?

It's funny how competitive people get in response to GWs attitude against overly competitive play.

Nidzrule! wrote:
It stops here - please do not mess with our 40k game. I have already lost WHFB - I DONT want to lose 40k.

I mean, they're the ones who made the game and lore to begin with, and they encourage us to make it as much our own as possible. I've considered what you wrote, and it does seem rather alarmist.

 pax macharia wrote:
So they took a game, made it more like the other, and now you're afraid they're gonna make the other more like the first?

This statement isn't what was stated, even by the title... obviously, he's afraid that GW will make 40k more like the new fantasy (Age of Sigmar) not like the old fantasy (or "the first" as you say above).

Just pointing that out... but yeah, I think the writing is on the wall and I am definitely not investing in GW systems now - the rules turnover rate is insane, and fixing that by just throwing out the rules and making a sandbox-type system doesn't seem like a good solution, either. There are lots of other wargames and those are getting my attention now (Hordes, Guildball, Kings of War, the Halo Fleet game... and I'll use my 40k stuff for Space Hulk, which has great rules ).

Rather than boycott an event or sitting there wishing GW would change for you, just move on. There's plenty of other games out there so you should be able to find something you like.

 RiTides wrote:

 pax macharia wrote:
So they took a game, made it more like the other, and now you're afraid they're gonna make the other more like the first?

This statement isn't what was stated, even by the title... obviously, he's afraid that GW will make 40k more like the new fantasy (Age of Sigmar) not like the old fantasy (or "the first" as you say above).

Just pointing that out... but yeah, I think the writing is on the wall and I am definitely not investing in GW systems now - the rules turnover rate is insane, and fixing that by just throwing out the rules and making a sandbox-type system doesn't seem like a good solution, either. There are lots of other wargames and those are getting my attention now (Hordes, Guildball, Kings of War, the Halo Fleet game... and I'll use my 40k stuff for Space Hulk, which has great rules ).

I feel that way as well, this is a shame as my first army is just now being finished haha.

Every unit has rules people keep making stuff up. The problem is AoS don't have point costs. Horus heresy has point costs there is no problem. Even removing point costs is fine if they had an army building mechanic built in. Either a narrative scenario format such as the Conan board game or balance the units against each other in some way. But to claim there is no rules is patently false.

I think there may be a difference between the Horus Heresy game FW produces through its rule volumes, and a entryway 40(30)k game that GW would make.

Been invested in the game since I was 12...

I am not wedded to a points balancing mechanic. I would just like a balancing mechanic that makes sense.

AoS clearly has gone down the tubes in that respect - there are rules for each unit but without a mechanic that is close to working, it makes an event hard to play. I am not a "competitive" player - I just want good balance. Think about what happens when you turn up at the event and you have to negotiate what makes a good game on the spot within a 2 to 2.5 hour time limit. If you get it wrong, then you or your opponent gets a bad game. Is it impossible to get a good game? Of course not. But the onus is entirely put on the players - and if doesnt work out, the implication is that someone's been a bad sport...

Now they plan to do something similar for HH. Play a minimum of 2,000 points. But if you can agree to go above why not?

This style of play works between 2 mature adults that know each other well and are invested in making a game fun as well as having a ton of time available to play the game. How does this even work for an event where the draws are random? Anyway, horses for courses. We will ultimately see what the final impact is in terms of attendance. ToSs have dropped in attendance since recent years - remains to be seen whether the trend continues.

We should not be apathetic to the situation or support it. Nothing so dramatic as a "CALL TO ARMS!" but at least voice our opinion especially if we can see the writing on the wall. It's like watching a crash about to occur in slow motion...

Why is the hh 2k such a problem? You go in with your 2k list, but also a 2250, 2500, 3k etc all written out. You tell your opponent what points you've written lists for, he does the same, and you know where you are after a 15 second conversation. If they haven't written up additional lists, you save time by just sticking to 2k. Doesn't need to be a drag.

I've never yet played in a WHW event, but I've been there when they were going on, and the atmosphere and attitudes that they cultivate are what has encouraged me to participate in one coming up.
The time/points variable is probably so that in future FW can gauge what points to set their HH events at, due to their lesser frequency, and the players not getting to field their gear at tournies as often. The event packs for 40K tournaments specifically preclude HH gear. They didn't specifically used to.

I don't see how you can object to a variable army list amongst games that are played for fellowship. There are things to object to - the entry price, the strict modelling rules, etc. but this feels a very odd point to object to.

The fact is the attendance at these events is not much more than the average weekend at WHW, plus the people playing are not there to buy anything, and they physically and mentally block access to the stores for regular customers. Boycotting these events will not hit GW in the pocket. The events already do that in themselves.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
40k has already been Sigmar'd over the last decade, but it was so gradual that most people only caught on when Unbound dropped. There's nothing there worth saving, just like there wasn't in WHFB.

And "unbound" was just a re-branding of Apoc, getting rid of the association that it needs to be a "large game" to throw out army construction rules, use formations and willy-nilly allies.

It's been around forever.

Easy 4 me, I live across the pond and if I was going to fly to the UK, it would be for HWGs DzC.

I think the issue here is that (certainly within my gaming circle) there isn't really a current standard points limit for HH players right now.

In the fact that for 40K the standard seems to be set at 1850pts.

Heresy games for the most part are played at 2000pts but also at 3000pts if people have Primarchs, Knights etc.

It's not as easy to do HH pick up games because of this so we do a very similar thing to what Warhammer World are doing which is bring 2000pts but also be prepared to play more.

I have no issue with this, it's how a lot of people play Heresy games and I think to be honest it gives players more autonomy to decide the level and type of game they wish to play at an organised event.

AoS is a bit different but let's not forget it's a game that's still in transition - eventually when the range is complete and everything is updated it will probably be more balanced but for the time being people are having to make do with their old WHFB armies.

Let's also not forget that GW events at Warhammer World are not tournaments. They are organised narrative events designed to get players to have a fun day out. GW moved away from competetive style events a while ago because they weren't the style of play they wanted to promote.

I understand that's not everybody's cup of tea but I have to admit I much prefer the new format, fun events as opposed to competetive style play.

I think rather than boycotting these type of events try to organise your own - if you want tournament style play though I don't think GW systems are the right choice any more.

I doubt you'll get enough people to agree to boycott to make any impact. A better idea would be to actually go to the tournament with a few like-minded people and show what is wrong. If something is broken or open to abuse then go there and abuse it.

EDITED: for my own sanity.

The AoS campaign event - and I have tried to be careful using terms like event - has very broad guidelines as to what you are supposed to bring. Like another poster has mentioned in another post, its the equivalent of Calvinball. However, it is a game that best benefits those who have the largest collections and the logistical fortitude to bring it to Warhammer World.

The HH method of 2000 points and then bring what you want and agree up to 3000 points and above is a step in that direction.

One poster mentioned writing lists at every 250pt chunk above 2000pts. So I come up with FIVE army lists, print these out and have to do some on the spot math if someone has decided, well within his rights, to play with what he has and therefore decides to do 2180? Any problems with the math - i.e. 30 pts missed out - hey whatever man. Its ok. Its only a game.

These proposals look good on paper, they feel as if they should work out because I've been playing with individuals I know well for a long period of time AND also have a social contract where everyone knows the baseline for fun and for what's not fun. If the event turns up to be unfulfilling, its a lot of money spent on transport, event cost, food and drink.

No one likes a Cassandra but I feel that we are moving in that direction. If any of the above posters do go, please do provide a short summary of how it went as well as attendance rates. I've been looking at ToS attendance rates and these have reduced.

 Smacks wrote:
I doubt you'll get enough people to agree to boycott to make any impact. A better idea would be to actually go to the tournament with a few like-minded people and demonstrate what's wrong. If something is broken or open to abuse then go there and abuse it.

So you'd spoil other people's fun just to vindicate your internet-crusade?

What's wrong with playing what you think is fun for yoruself and staying away from the things you don't enjoy, leaving it to the people that do?

Wonderwolf - I know you are replying to a different poster. Just an additional comment.

I don't want to ruin anyone's fun at these events as I've always said horses for courses.

I am just afraid that with the trend in rulespack writing - the AoS syndrome affects 40k. If the Warhammer World team catered for other types of events, i.e. more structured then I'd be less worried but they appear to be running events that are becoming more and more unstructured...

@Nidzrule!

True, but inversely events like Adepticon, Games Expo, etc.., indeed most organised gaming events out there all run exclusively structured and competitive events.

Even if Warhammer World is exclusively doing these unstructured events, their events are still a great minority overall. Fans of structured, competitive events still have a vastly superior choice of events to attend, especially outside the UK, compared to fans of the kind of events Warhammer World is now experimenting with.

The thing people seem to be missing is...AoS is going to sell like crap. The models look derpy, the rules are just...too simple. Its a gateway game. To what you ask? Well, what's coming out in the next year or so?

Total war: Warhammer. Have you any idea how much exposure that game is going to bring? And what currently would it expose; a relatively easy to pick up model game thats got a reasonable buy in price. But its small scale? Not meshing well with the total ethos of total war? Well that's why I believe AoS is being set up for a War of the Ring style expansion (why do they still sell minis on square bases if its a skirmish game without unit cohesion?)

But onto 40k, I think we can all agree that 7th ed should really have been called 6th.5 IT STREAMLINED every expansion (unbound = apocalypse). 7th is the AoS of 40k and guess what? It works rather well.

Anyway to sum up for those who skipped:
- Age of Sigmar is going to sell badly
- 40k is GW's cash cow so reducing the number of models per battle would destroy sales
- Age of Sigmar is a gateway game; 9th ed will be along some time in the next year or so.

Wonderwolf - I do understand that if you were a "competitive" gamer, there are a whole bunch of events you could attend outside of Warhammer World that could scratch your itch.

However, the reason I am so alarmed now is because of AoS being introduced and there being rumours that 40k will follow. I didn't really care when WW decided that they were going to run tournaments where favourite game votes decided who won. People who like that format can go and I wish them and the events team the best.

But if WW starts running events where points are an afterthought and there is an increasingly lack of structure for 40k events, then I should start to take note. It is better to do something now rather than passively accept that "things will happen so whatever". If AoS occurred to 40k, Nova, BAO, etc. etc. as well as us occasional players will have to come up with some common system of balance. Now THAT is a drag.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Deathless Host. I hope you are right. But the fact that AoS is being run as a campaign event at WW means that it is highly unlikely there will be a 9th edition. Unless AoS totally and utterly bombs. If you want to make sure there's a 9th edition, you need to make yourself heard. And the best way to do that is through GW's pocket.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I doubt you'll get enough people to agree to boycott to make any impact. A better idea would be to actually go to the tournament with a few like-minded people and demonstrate what's wrong. If something is broken or open to abuse then go there and abuse it.

So you'd spoil other people's fun just to vindicate your internet-crusade?

If the game isn't fun when played by the rules then it is the fault of the game designers, not the players. Bringing problems to their attention is better for everyone.

Also it's not my crusade, I don't care if they AoS 40k, I'd prefer a lighter more accessible version.

 Smacks wrote:

If the game isn't fun when played by the rules then it is the fault of the game designers, not the players. Bringing problems to their attention is better for everyone.

Who are you to decide that the people attending aren't having fun?

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

If the game isn't fun when played by the rules then it is the fault of the game designers, not the players. Bringing problems to their attention is better for everyone.

Who are you to decide that the people attending aren't having fun?

Well who are you to decide? I simply suggested he go there and abuse what is abusable. You're the one saying that would spoil peoples fun. How do you know that wouldn't make it more fun? Who are you to decide?

 Smacks wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

If the game isn't fun when played by the rules then it is the fault of the game designers, not the players. Bringing problems to their attention is better for everyone.

Who are you to decide that the people attending aren't having fun?

Well who are you to decide? I simply suggested he go there and abuse what is abusable. You're the one saying that would spoil peoples fun. How do you know that wouldn't make it more fun? Who are you to decide?

Perhaps it is your use of the word "demonstrate"?
it could be taken to mean protest, which yes, if I paid to play in a tournament have to spend two hours playing against someone who's complaining, protesting, or making a point, that's where I start to care.

What did you actually mean?

Nidzrule! wrote:


@Deathless Host. I hope you are right. But the fact that AoS is being run as a campaign event at WW means that it is highly unlikely there will be a 9th edition. Unless AoS totally and utterly bombs. If you want to make sure there's a 9th edition, you need to make yourself heard. And the best way to do that is through GW's pocket.

Lol yeah only language they will ever understand!

I'm boycotting this threads waste of bandwidth.

 The Deathless Host wrote:
The thing people seem to be missing is...AoS is going to sell like crap. The models look derpy, the rules are just...too simple. Its a gateway game. To what you ask? Well, what's coming out in the next year or so?

Total war: Warhammer. Have you any idea how much exposure that game is going to bring? And what currently would it expose; a relatively easy to pick up model game thats got a reasonable buy in price. But its small scale? Not meshing well with the total ethos of total war? Well that's why I believe AoS is being set up for a War of the Ring style expansion (why do they still sell minis on square bases if its a skirmish game without unit cohesion?)

But onto 40k, I think we can all agree that 7th ed should really have been called 6th.5 IT STREAMLINED every expansion (unbound = apocalypse). 7th is the AoS of 40k and guess what? It works rather well.

Anyway to sum up for those who skipped:
- Age of Sigmar is going to sell badly
- 40k is GW's cash cow so reducing the number of models per battle would destroy sales
- Age of Sigmar is a gateway game; 9th ed will be along some time in the next year or so.

The problem with this hypothesis is that AoS is nothing like WHFB or Total War: Warhammer. It's not a mass battle fantasy game, the setting is entirely different, and the heroes in the videogame are dead in AoS.

So the TW game is good advertisement for a tabletop game that GW doesn't produce anymore.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Perhaps it is your use of the word "demonstrate"?
it could be taken to mean protest, which yes, if I paid to play in a tournament have to spend two hours playing against someone who's complaining, protesting, or making a point, that's where I start to care.

What did you actually mean?

No I meant demonstrate as in "give a practical exhibition of"/"illustrate", not "protest", although it would still be making a point.

How the OP would go about doing that would depend on what exactly he takes issue with in the respective games, and if those grievances are warranted. I personally don't have a problem with AoS. It's probably the closest I've come to caring about fantasy in ~20 years.

 heartserenade wrote:

 The Deathless Host wrote:
The thing people seem to be missing is...AoS is going to sell like crap. The models look derpy, the rules are just...too simple. Its a gateway game. To what you ask? Well, what's coming out in the next year or so?

Total war: Warhammer. Have you any idea how much exposure that game is going to bring? And what currently would it expose; a relatively easy to pick up model game thats got a reasonable buy in price. But its small scale? Not meshing well with the total ethos of total war? Well that's why I believe AoS is being set up for a War of the Ring style expansion (why do they still sell minis on square bases if its a skirmish game without unit cohesion?)

But onto 40k, I think we can all agree that 7th ed should really have been called 6th.5 IT STREAMLINED every expansion (unbound = apocalypse). 7th is the AoS of 40k and guess what? It works rather well.

Anyway to sum up for those who skipped:
- Age of Sigmar is going to sell badly
- 40k is GW's cash cow so reducing the number of models per battle would destroy sales
- Age of Sigmar is a gateway game; 9th ed will be along some time in the next year or so.

The problem with this hypothesis is that AoS is nothing like WHFB or Total War: Warhammer. It's not a mass battle fantasy game, the setting is entirely different, and the heroes in the videogame are dead in AoS.

So the TW game is good advertisement for a tabletop game that GW doesn't produce anymore.

Exactly, they still make all the minis, just not the rules. When it comes out it will rekindle interest from new players. You will notice I pointed out the descrpency and lack of cohesion in my original post. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot to not take advantage of this opportunity, then again this is GW.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Aye, old GW tournaments also had rulepacks. Slim ones, but they had ones. That was old GW though.

Yeah that was back when it was Games Workshop, not Make-gak-up-yourselves-we-just-don't-care-anymore Sweatshop.

Why does everyone think 40k is going to be sigmar'd? I bet once its not so new everyone will turn back to 40k.

 Da Stormlord wrote:
Why does everyone think 40k is going to be sigmar'd? I bet once its not so new everyone will turn back to 40k.

All the rumours from reliable sources are saying dexes are gone sometime in the future and we have less than a year until the 2 year expected window for 7th is up. Plus the rumours of a stripped down 40k are floating around.

@pities2004 It's not a waste of bandwidth or time to me.

It's a hobby I have invested a lot in over the years and I would like to highlight this development to the community which I find alarming.

@Smacks It is difficult to demonstrate a point to WW by participating in these events as by participating you are giving tacit approval to the way they are run. You cant really demonstrate through the list that you run as the format is so unstructured.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Ravenous D That's correct. And with the way WW are moving in their tournament packs, its just further confirmation of a potentially ruinous trend.

 Da Stormlord wrote:
Why does everyone think 40k is going to be sigmar'd? I bet once its not so new everyone will turn back to 40k.

What does it even mean to be sigmared for 40k?

Nidzrule! wrote:
I am a longtime lurker and very occasional poster on my favourite tabletop wargames - 40k followed by WHFB.

I have reserved my feelings regarding the death of WHFB (which I got into as a 12 year old) for a long time since the rumours surrounding the Age of Sigmar started appearing and eventually became reality. Even with the launch of the boxed set for AoS and the warscrolls, I continued to be optimistic - this could not be it. This could not be what GW leaves us with, particularly players who do not have a regular playgroup and look for pick up games. Surely there would be some ability to balance for this at some stage... usually the guys at Warhammer World can come up with something usable. I mean these were the guys who came up with a useful campaign ruleset for Killteam on their own.

Now I have seen the latest on the planned Age of Sigmar event on the Warhammer World event website which absolutely boggles the mind.

"The amount of time you have to play the game is the only real restriction so bring whatever you think would get you a great game in that time." This is ridiculous. Seriously. This is a complete abdication of the business' ability or want to balance the game.

I am even more alarmed by what they are doing for the Horus Heresy campaign weekend. The choice is 2000 points BUT there is no upper limit. It entirely depends on a nebulous restriction around what you think you can do within the time allotted per game. Seriously?!?!

I don't mind that the events are now basically marketing campaigns for the GW's games and are driven by favourite game votes. I GET it. You want sportsmanship to drive who WINS these events. I buy that. Horses for courses. But this latest development is ridiculous. I have seen the rumours that have been flagged on Natfka and by Hastings on how 40k may be Age of Sigmar'd. The fact that they are doing these events for AoS and also something similar for Horus Heresy is making me scared for my favourite game 40k. I dont want some ridiculous crap being pushed onto me by a games company that cannot be bothered with writing rules and leaves us to make it up on the fly. This is our chance to take a stand. Do NOT attend these events. There will always be guys buying the models but we need to send a message. It stops here - please do not mess with our 40k game. I have already lost WHFB - I DONT want to lose 40k.

Look some people will think I am alarmist. Some people will think that I have written a great crazy wall of text. Please be willing to digest what I have written. I am open to your views. I am just afraid of where GW is going with 40k. This is relevant to everyone who loves the 40k game as it is even if you are not in the UK and find it logistically to attend events at Nottingham. In that case highlight your views to the events team at Warhammer World. It's a drop of water but every drop counts. This is different to the usual threads where you convince people to "boycott" buying models - you cant reach the entire communnity easily. But people who go to events? Thats us. Thats why we need to open our mouths and vote with our wallets or an email. This may be the start of Age of Sigmarification for 40k and it is up us to do something about it.

Could you not go and give it a try? Is it not possible that you'll enjoy it?

Well we know GW thinks points and force orgs are what was restricting sales (not their prices though!). Essentially GW is moving in the direction of making a single page of fluff and rules when a unit comes out and force players to govern themselves. That's been the trend for years, GW cuts itself to the bone just to stay level.

Meanwhile the problem is that it alienates a lot of your player base and makes for a shittastic game, all these GW guys keep saying its "beer and pretzels" when it looks more akin to milk and cookies.

I'll pass on the boycott, thanks. Age of Sigmar is fine and you know what? I hope 40k gets the same treatment.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
I I hope 40k gets the same treatment.

What would that entail, excactly?

1) There are 7 40k rulebooks
2) Surely it is possible to combine all into the rulebook that GW will never do,i.e. one that is balanced and doesn't need changed?
3) How many more rulebooks do you need to play the game? One not enough?Let's face it, they are never going to get it right because you'd never buy another edition!
4) Do you really need GW? You have the rules,scenery and figures.Is that not enough?

1) if you don't like it, don't play in the event
2) if you turn up to an event that ive (alongside others) paid good money to enjoy purely on the idea that you're going to 'protest' or 'demonstrate' by abusing the guidelines and / or being disruptive, be prepared to have an incredibly short visit..
3) expecting another version of WFB is fruitless - this IS 9th whether you like it or not
4) having a fluid points limit allows players who are a few points over to discuss with their opponent whether they're cool with it or not - I'm sure that on the day, there will be guidelines on how this is scored etc..
5) scoring - who cares? This isn't a WAAC tournament - that's pretty obvious from the guide pack already published. If you like WAAC play, go elsewhere.
6) 'I'm invested' - no, you've bought toy soldiers. Investments provide returns. Toys are to be played for. Calling it an investment just tries to mask the fact it's toy soliders.
7) AOS is dying.. Really? All I hear is how much it's reinvigorating lapsed players and bringing in new ones who were put off by the moribund feel 8th had...

TLR? You're making a mountain out of a tiny molehill. Get over it.

@triplegrim AoS is the replacement for WHFB and one of the core aspects of the game that has set certain parts of the WHFB community up in arms is the lack of a balancing mechanic. There are other parts of the gaming community, some of whom have posted in this thread, consider the lack of a balancing mechanic not that much of an issue. Up to you what approach you take but clearly my view is that this is a net negative for the game.

@Art Steventon. Another poster suggested "demonstrating" at the event. Personally I think its not worth the investment and clearly ruining someone else's fun is not my idea of a good time. These events are not tournaments and WW clearly advertises these as events. I don't have a problem with winning the tournament based on favourite game votes. This is in itself a form of balancing the event and as I have said earlier - good luck to the events team and the people who attend it.

I am taking issue with the unstructured format of the event, starting off with the lack of points. Are you planning on going to either the AoS or HH event? Would be worthwhile getting your view on attendance and on how well it runs.

I am indeed going.

What I would say is that the format must be a hit with those who want to go as the GW ticketing system crashed this morning though the level of demand, so any idea of a boycott is a non-starter.

As for the pack? I'm cool with it. I see it as a way to prepare a few lists, both at 2000 and various increments (not even structured towards 250 stages or similar), that would be fun to play WITH and AGAINST. This includes lists that have a Primarch, one with a Titan etc... that are fluffy, and fun. What I won't be doing is whining about WAAC players, or how broken lists are... I'll let others do that. Me? I'm going for 5 games that I reckon will be a laugh to play, see some friends and make some new ones.

And see some kickass armies.

The Vote For The Winner has been around since Roman Times.

My favorite example is Medieval Tournaments. The Crowd Voted on who won. Many a time it went to the Newb who got trounced in every challenge, but who showed the most Honer and Guts, not the Seasoned Knight who mercilessly beat every opponent into the ground.

To me this brings something 'Good' to the 'Game'.

I hate...sorry I LOATH the 'Tournament Gaming Circuit' and I wish I could go to this one.

 Smacks wrote:

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Perhaps it is your use of the word "demonstrate"?
it could be taken to mean protest, which yes, if I paid to play in a tournament have to spend two hours playing against someone who's complaining, protesting, or making a point, that's where I start to care.

What did you actually mean?

No I meant demonstrate as in "give a practical exhibition of"/"illustrate", not "protest", although it would still be making a point.

How the OP would go about doing that would depend on what exactly he takes issue with in the respective games, and if those grievances are warranted. I personally don't have a problem with AoS. It's probably the closest I've come to caring about fantasy in ~20 years.

Peeesshhh
go there

play games

get frustrated

get in fist fight.

That should get the point across.

Nidzrule! wrote:
@Art Steventon. Another poster suggested "demonstrating" at the event.

No one suggested demonstrating at the event. However, a lot of people seem to be hard of understanding that. Providing a demonstration of what you are talking about, is a completely different realm of meaning to organising a civil protest.

What the hell are you talking about anyway? I've reread your first post three times now, and I still can't see anything that looks like an actual "reason" why you can't just turn up with 2000 points and play happily. If someone else turns up with 20,000 points of empty rhinos, just say "sorry, I only brought enough for a 2000 point game. That'll just have to do" -- end of discussion.

 triplegrim wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
I I hope 40k gets the same treatment.

What would that entail, excactly?

Mostly involves not having standards or a sense of self worth.

 Art Steventon wrote:
I am indeed going.

What I would say is that the format must be a hit with those who want to go as the GW ticketing system crashed this morning though the level of demand, so any idea of a boycott is a non-starter.

As for the pack? I'm cool with it. I see it as a way to prepare a few lists, both at 2000 and various increments (not even structured towards 250 stages or similar), that would be fun to play WITH and AGAINST. This includes lists that have a Primarch, one with a Titan etc... that are fluffy, and fun. What I won't be doing is whining about WAAC players, or how broken lists are... I'll let others do that. Me? I'm going for 5 games that I reckon will all be a laugh to play, see some friends and make some new ones.

And see some kickass armies.

This, so much this.

I actually really like the new format and Art has summed up why, but I respect it isn't everybody's cup of tea. But nobody is making you go, if you want structured tournament style events there are plenty to attend. It's just not something GW does any more (if they ever did).

Just wanted to be very clear here: I don't have a problem with a significant part of the HH event. The only issue I have for the HH event is that it is moving from a set points mark to something more unstructured. Clearly there are a number of posters who find that ok. I get that. However, if this trend moves closer to AoS then would you have an issue? More news today on the AoS event:

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2015/08/03/the-battle-for-the-realmgates-the-eight-realms/

Some of the rules here are bonkers - if a 40k event had these AoS hallmarks, i.e. no points values at all and these types of event rules, would this still be fun?

Again do not confuse my concern as WAAC vs non-WAAC or whether its fluffy vs non-fluffy. My issue is that if AoS rules like these becoming a hallmark of a 40k event, this would be an issue, for me at least...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another question from me would be - how many of you would be attending the AoS event in Nottingham given the information that we have now?

The rules that they are using aren't the same as what are actually in the Age of Sigmar book.

Nowhere in that book do any of the silly rules make an appearance. These are just for the event.

I'm glad to hear the event is proving popular, and I hope attendance pushes GW to focus on HH even more in the future. Folk voting with their feet!

 Smacks wrote:

Nidzrule! wrote:
@Art Steventon. Another poster suggested "demonstrating" at the event.

No one suggested demonstrating at the event. However, a lot of people seem to be hard of understanding that. Providing a demonstration of what you are talking about, is a completely different realm of meaning to organising a civil protest.

Pardon us, you wrote something unclear, with a common meaning different to the one you chose, and little or no context.

Considering the tone of your post, it wasn't a massive leap to assume you meant otherwise.

Just to repeat my earlier question from 2 days go - is anyone going to the Age of Sigmar campaign weekend?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No one's put their hand up yet.

It's weird even though I haven't played WFB in about 15 yrs I still feel that getting rid of it for AoS is a strange step. I can see why they would do something similar to 40K. I mean there are good and bad points to both. But If they do it it's not like all of our old rulebooks and codices will wither to dust. We can still play the 40k we love. Just look at netepic for a case in point there. And as some of you have said there are so many other cool games out there maybe it's time to move on if we can't work round it.

Anyway I'm going to go put some grotz together lol

Nidzrule! wrote:
Just to repeat my earlier question from 2 days go - is anyone going to the Age of Sigmar campaign weekend?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No one's put their hand up yet.

I would, but I live in So-Cal

 Elblondino wrote:
It's weird even though I haven't played WFB in about 15 yrs I still feel that getting rid of it for AoS is a strange step. I can see why they would do something similar to 40K. I mean there are good and bad points to both. But If they do it it's not like all of our old rulebooks and codices will wither to dust. We can still play the 40k we love.

People always say this, but it's essentially meaningless. If you have a dedicated group of gamer friends then you can play anything you want or just make up your own game if you like. But GW is an extremely niche-oriented hobby. In most non-major cities finding a tight-knit group of GW gamers is not an option. You must go to the LGS and play against the other people who show up, because those are the only GW fans in your area. The LGS group always uses the most recent edition of whatever rules go with whatever game they're playing.
My LGS is fairly laid back but many stores only allow gamers to use their space in order to demonstrate and advertise products that the store wants to sell. If these stores catch gamers playing something that isn't even in print anymore, they will probably tell them to move along and those gamers will be banished to their respective garages and basements to play their obsolete games away from the prying eyes of the public.

In short, you can play outdated games. If you can find someone willing to play them with you then good for you. The rest of us aren't so lucky.

Warscrolls for 40K would be awesome....points would be good though.

Don't know if you played magic the gathering back in the day, but there were no deck building rules or points per card yet it was still easy to sit down with anyone else who played and have a fun game.

And points don't balance a game anyway, its just a justification to say 'I beat you fair and square' when really it wasn't fair at all.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Pardon us, you wrote something unclear, with a common meaning different to the one you chose, and little or no context.

Considering the tone of your post, it wasn't a massive leap to assume you meant otherwise.

I apologise for the original ambiguity. It did not occur to me that the phrase "demonstrate what's wrong" would be interpreted any other way than "provide an example of what's wrong". When I ask someone to demonstrate something for me, I don't usually expect them to form a picket line and begin chanting "WHAT DO WE WANT! Less long division! WHEN DO WE WANT IT! now!". Even though demonstrate can mean that, it's not the first thing that usually comes to mind.

I concede though that it may have been ambiguous given the subject at hand. If the meaning was unclear then it was my fault, not yours. However, my post where I said: demonstrate as in "give a practical exhibition of" / "illustrate", not "protest" really should have cleared up any ambiguity. So there was no reason for the misunderstanding to keep being perpetuated, other than the usual lack of reading comprehension.

I started boycotting Throne of Skulls events when they made the favorite game votes count for more than actual wins.

Why couldn't they have one tournament that is based on Favorite Game votes and another where its just points won.

This new 'bring your whole collection' is insanity. But fine, I just won't go.

Attendance at this event is not really likely to affect GW's 'plan' for AoS. I think the -only- true indicator of that will be actual AoS sales.

Let's say you were lucky enough to convince -every single player- to boycott the event at Warhammer World. Do you think GW is going to go, "Oh wow! We were WRONG!" No. They have their plan and they're apparently pretty fully committed to it.

RIP WHFB.

BUT... whether or not 40K gets "Sigmar'd" depends on AoS sales. If AoS sells like gangbusters and approaches or the Four Gods forbid, surpasses 40K sales, then you can probably start eBaying your stuff at that point. But if AoS sells poorly - WHY would GW Sigmar their flagship?

So really, the next 6 months or so will tell us a lot, and next year this time we'll be discussing how AWESOME AoS sold... or what a flop it is, and by then we'll have a much better picture.

Please GW , will you AOS 40K!!! Sooner the better ! Do what you do best , awesome models awesome fluff and some basic rules that are doable. Leave the actual game design to the online community so we can Forge our own Narrative !! This boycott stuff is ridiculous , remember AOS rules are free . So if you don`t like the FREE rules then don`t use them. If you don`t like it don`t play , why all the nerd rage??

So to sum this all up: "why won't people play with their toys the way I want them to!?!"

Haldir wrote:
Please GW , will you AOS 40K!!! Sooner the better ! Do what you do best , awesome models awesome fluff and some basic rules that are doable. Leave the actual game design to the online community so we can Forge our own Narrative !! This boycott stuff is ridiculous , remember AOS rules are free . So if you don`t like the FREE rules then don`t use them. If you don`t like it don`t play , why all the nerd rage??

Our group is already talking about just not dealing with points anymore. We have three thoughts on how we are going to do it.
1] Bring one Detachment of lets say with 8-10 units.
2] I place a Unit, He places a unit and go back and forth until we feel there is enough of the "Table"
3] Just bring One or two Formations

cause grots are equal to marines....

If there are no points, then its pointless as a game.

 Ravenous D wrote:
cause grots are equal to marines....

If there are no points, then its pointless as a game.

Bad Pun Is Bad...

You are not going to see 10 grots vs 10 Marines though.
It is going to be a full sized 33+ model Mob including Handlers and Squigs vs. the 10 Model Tactical Squad.

^Something to think about:
Compare a full Tactical Squad to a full Devastator Centurion Squad, Ravenwing Command Squad or Vindicator Squadron.
Still only one squad, but none of those others are equivalent to a Tac Squad.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
^Something to think about:
Compare a full Tactical Squad to a full Devastator Centurion Squad, Ravenwing Command Squad or Vindicator Squadron.
Still only one squad, but none of those others are equivalent to a Tac Squad.

Yes I know that.
I also make the assumption that people I Choose to play with are there to have fun and are playing the Grots because they like the unit [Fluff/Rules/Whatever] and are playing them because they just like them, just like I like running my Tactical Squads.

That is a fair assumption but it doesn't solve the issue:
1) That would mean that the "weaker" units would only be usable just for a lark and never anything else
2) Even without people intentionally trying to screw each other over it would be hard to get a fair match up anyway. If I want to use a small number of strong units and the other wants a larger number of weak units this doesn't work because each unit is worth more for me than him. Even beyond that, even comparable things aren't always worth the same. Ravenwing Black Knights are more powerful than ordinary Ravenwing Bikers (which is why they cost more points) but not SO much as to be in a whole different league. One could try and balance it with gauging unit worth... But that's really just getting back to points or at least something similar.

The points system was not fully balanced as of 8th edition. I think the majority of people can accept that. There were strong units and poor units - that's why listbuilding became a skill. You have that issue with 40k 7th edition.

However, this is not to say that GW should have completely abandoned the point system - which they have with AoS. That is why there are alternative events where there is a level of comp (including Nova and BAO) where the community has had to self regulate in order to get the game to a more balanced state that clearly works for all the people who signed up to go - even if there are others who disagree with it.

I think the majority of gamers - be they fluff or competitive, want a fair game. But the important caveat also is that we would like a fair game where most of the time is also spent playing the game, rather than structuring the game.

The ideal situation would be a points based system that perfectly simulated the value of units and therefore can be easily used to get a 'fair game'. The issue is that for AoS GW has given up on any system of balance. Balance is now put entirely on the shoulders of the players. Deciding balance takes time. Also what's fair or fluffy for you is not the same for someone else. People bring up strawman examples like 30 Bloodthirsters vs 30 goblins. That's never going to happen in reality or even if it did, the perpetrator would be slapped down quickly. The issue would be over the gray lines. For example, I've decided to include a hydra in my DE army. Sounds pretty fair for the opponent to bring in something like a HE prince on a griffon right? Well the hydra is a lot better than the griffon. If I were the HE player, I could do the following things:

1. Insist that the hydra is more powerful and say I need to bring something else along with it. Then we'd have to negotiate whether the additional unit I've brought is appropriate

2. Let it go. I dont want to be THAT guy and let it be. But I know that the game is tilted in his favour. But what's my objective for the game? Its for me to win right? Not really, my objective now is to try and win cooperatively? To not be the proverbial THAT guy but still win. Truth is that I'd be cool with that but not every single time. I'm not a saint. I just want things to be fair.

3. Retaliate with putting down a HE prince on a dragon instead or something clearly more powerful. Then say points dont matter. At which point we'd probably have one game but that guy thinks I'm THAT guy. Not a good route.

Route 1 is best in terms of getting to a compromise. But it will take time with someone who you are not familiar with. Route 2 is second best in result but you let it go and you dont waste additional time. Route 3 is me abusing the rules but I get an advantage with downside of losing games in the future.

All these routes are suboptimal. GW can try to give us a points system. At the very least run events that do not only cater to those who want to play a freeform campaign, RPG like event, but also the possibility of playing a more structured, competitive event. What would be the downside for their sales? MV Brandt basically does both types of events at NOVA because he understands that different people, have different requirements. Now that AoS has lost the points system, its difficult to run an alternative style event.

@ Mort. I have always suspected that Warhammer World events are used as a forum for market research. Despite the oft quoted phrase from Kirby about market research, he is interested in enriching himself and doing NO research makes no sense at all. Whether he does enough or whether his approach is correct - another matter entirely. The ToS events rulespacks went through the following phases:

1. At around end of 5th edition, ToSs were swiss pairing affairs. However, scoring was based on the relative performance of your army versus the same faction. The winner was the won who did the best compared to the average of the other armies in the same faction. This was done to alleviate the issues of a slow release schedule that left some armies very weak and reintroduce army diversity. Debatable how successful this was. Favourite game votes played a substantial part in determining who won but gaming wins did too. Btw, this was a W/L/D system with no variation in quality of win.

2. Start of 6th edition with allies. Still swiss pairing affairs with the same best of army point calculations. However, some people starting abusing the ally rules. Also the events team decided that the atmosphere at the top tables was not good and not in the spirit of the game. As a result, swiss pairing went out of the window. Later on, more concrete ToS event rules on allies were introduced, beyond what was in the 6th ed rulebook (to prevent SoB armies that had 300 points of models but with 1200 pts of necrons for example, which DID happen at one of the events)

3. Interestingly 7th edition appeared and allies rules become considerably more codified. WHW went under construction. When ToSs resumed this year, a new paradigm. No more old best of army points calculations. It is now entirely favourite game vote based. A tie in favourite game votes meant the VPs would be considered as a secondary tiebreaker

4. This fourth phase sees a lot more twists on ToS. There's a vehicle friendly ToS. Horus Heresy Throne of Skulls appears in tandem with AoS. It is also the first ToS to have a varying range of points levels (from 2000 pts and up) rather than a set point level.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
That is a fair assumption but it doesn't solve the issue:
1) That would mean that the "weaker" units would only be usable just for a lark and never anything else
2) Even without people intentionally trying to screw each other over it would be hard to get a fair match up anyway. If I want to use a small number of strong units and the other wants a larger number of weak units this doesn't work because each unit is worth more for me than him. Even beyond that, even comparable things aren't always worth the same. Ravenwing Black Knights are more powerful than ordinary Ravenwing Bikers (which is why they cost more points) but not SO much as to be in a whole different league. One could try and balance it with gauging unit worth... But that's really just getting back to points or at least something similar.

With going to a Pointless system though just getting back to points changes completely. It also will depend on your local META and Mindset of the Gamers.
My group looks at the possible changes with hope, but we do not play like a lot of other groups...at least like the ones I keep reading here.
We like to play what we want to play and a Unit's 'Effectiveness vs. Points' is not even secondary. Some time I want to play my Grey Hunters and sometime I want to just play my Sternguard and others my Rough Riders. One of our Players wants to play his Razorback/Melta SPAM and others times an all Dreadnaught Army. That is just how we play. AoS/4ok would change little other than we would not be spending time working out our list.

AoS took around 3 yrs to develop. If 40k goes the same way, it'll already be underway, but probably 2 years away until release. I really, really wouldn't be surprised if it does, although an end times scale introduction that advances the story would be most welcome.

You can see the progression of the events becoming more and more freeform as time has gone on.

I suspect that WHW represents a "laboratory" for management/ designers and use the trends that are observed to extrapolate to the general populace - which they have not made an attempt to contact in any meaningful way. I agree with you Mort that sales will play a part in a decision made, but WHW events give a view into how a subsector of the gaming population reacts to particular design decisions at Nottingham itself. Not saying that its a good way, but I am convinced that WHW fulfils a market research role, at least partially.

 Anpu42 wrote:
With going to a Pointless system though just getting back to points changes completely. It also will depend on your local META and Mindset of the Gamers.

What I was trying to say with that was actually that it's going back to doing what points are supposed to do: gauge relative worth of units and such.
While you might be happy not gauging that, even with what you've said where you just play what you want, some sort of balancing mechanism is needed to tell you how much of that you need and such.
Points are really the best way to do it, but without them there has to be some sort of balancing mechanism to do their job.

Nidzrule! wrote:
You can see the progression of the events becoming more and more freeform as time has gone on.

I suspect that WHW represents a "laboratory" for management/ designers and use the trends that are observed to extrapolate to the general populace - which they have not made an attempt to contact in any meaningful way. I agree with you Mort that sales will play a part in a decision made, but WHW events give a view into how a subsector of the gaming population reacts to particular design decisions at Nottingham itself. Not saying that its a good way, but I am convinced that WHW fulfils a market research role, at least partially.

In so much as any other GW store does.
Be aware that a good half of the people playing and shopping there are just regular locals who turn up regardless. Because if you live in Nottingham, and you want to play 40K, they have by far the best tables. The tournaments are usually made up of a goodly percentage of repeat players as well. I go to play roughly fortnightly, and I have friends who go weekly, and there are folk I recognise.

Their event days and exclusive stores are probably more useful a measuring system as to what people want.

I think my post got truncated. We are in agreement on this one point Buttery Commissar - WHW events, be it ToS or a Campaign event give the designers or management a view as to how the market has reacted to various changes. Tournaments, like you say, have quite a number of repeat players. With dropping attendance numbers though, it looks to be more a core base now that is driving and sustaining the ToS philosophy. I am not sure how much of drop would need to take place before a realisation that perhaps different types of events will cater to different types of players - therefore capturing a larger share of the market.

Btw the crash on the ToS event for HH was caused by a glitch in the system rather than a total sellout as published on the WHW website. Remains to be seen how many people will eventually turn up. It's an interesting experiment but I am afraid what conclusions GWHQ will draw from it.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
With going to a Pointless system though just getting back to points changes completely. It also will depend on your local META and Mindset of the Gamers.

What I was trying to say with that was actually that it's going back to doing what points are supposed to do: gauge relative worth of units and such.
While you might be happy not gauging that, even with what you've said where you just play what you want, some sort of balancing mechanism is needed to tell you how much of that you need and such.
Points are really the best way to do it, but without them there has to be some sort of balancing mechanism to do their job.

From what some of the others have been saying the War-Scroll Formations seemed to be balanced with each other.

As for true balancing [Insert Shrug Icon] some groups may Need Points, then some groups don't.

@XT 1984 I dont know if I've met you at any previous events. I echo your sentiment on event diversity. The guys who want more structured events can have their own party as well as those who want something more freeform. No need to comment which is 'better'. Everyone likes playing games their in a particular way - ultimately if its a profit issue, the attendance numbers for each event will be the conclusive arbiter.

Again though, I fear where 40k is going and I would be puzzled by why 40k would voluntarily cede ground to other wargames with poorer background (YMMV of course) but more solid rules sets.

 Anpu42 wrote:
From what some of the others have been saying the War-Scroll Formations seemed to be balanced with each other.

As for true balancing [Insert Shrug Icon] some groups may Need Points, then some groups don't.

I don't know what those are but they aren't what 40k use.

In any case, it all comes back to the point that you'll always need some kind of balancing mechanism, if not points then maybe something like all the units in a particular slot being balanced against each other and each plays gets a certain amounts of each kind of slot to use, just as an example.

I'd still say points are the best one just because of how flexible it is and how easy it makes it to balance things (if nothing else you can just price up OP stuff and price down weak stuff), just an issue that GW was doing it wrong a lot.

But I totally could handle another balancing mechanism if it worked. Issue is that AOS has NONE and if they did it to 40k I'm not sure I trust them to add one.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
From what some of the others have been saying the War-Scroll Formations seemed to be balanced with each other.

As for true balancing [Insert Shrug Icon] some groups may Need Points, then some groups don't.

I don't know what those are but they aren't what 40k use.

In any case, it all comes back to the point that you'll always need some kind of balancing mechanism, if not points then maybe something like all the units in a particular slot being balanced against each other and each plays gets a certain amounts of each kind of slot to use, just as an example.

I'd still say points are the best one just because of how flexible it is and how easy it makes it to balance things (if nothing else you can just price up OP stuff and price down weak stuff), just an issue that GW was doing it wrong a lot.

But I totally could handle another balancing mechanism if it worked. Issue is that AOS has NONE and if they did it to 40k I'm not sure I trust them to add one.

In the back of each army's War-Scroll is one or more 'Organizations' [The AoS term for Formations I guess] that is like:
Take 1 Hero
Take 3 Units
Take 1 Monster
ans then some special rules for unit in the 'Organization'

I see, something based on that could potentially work, though it would have to be done quite carefully.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
I see, something based on that could potentially work, though it would have to be done quite carefully.

And would restrict army creation more than a points system.

We all forget guys that it was GW who came up with points and balance. To a traditional war game points are a denial of its very soul. War isn't balanced. I'm not against a points system but it's war games I want to play not monopoly. There were no point systems at the somme, ypres or Bosworth.

MWHistorian wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
I see, something based on that could potentially work, though it would have to be done quite carefully.

And would restrict army creation more than a points system.

Indeed, points are more flexible so I still prefer them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Knockagh wrote:
We all forget guys that it was GW who came up with points and balance. To a traditional war game points are a denial of its very soul. War isn't balanced. I'm not against a points system but it's war games I want to play not monopoly. There were no point systems at the somme, ypres or Bosworth.

It's also a GAME so competitive balance is needed, whatever this pseudo-philosophical nonsense says.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
I see, something based on that could potentially work, though it would have to be done quite carefully.

And would restrict army creation more than a points system.

Indeed, points are more flexible so I still prefer them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Knockagh wrote:
We all forget guys that it was GW who came up with points and balance. To a traditional war game points are a denial of its very soul. War isn't balanced. I'm not against a points system but it's war games I want to play not monopoly. There were no point systems at the somme, ypres or Bosworth.

It's also a GAME so competitive balance is needed, whatever this pseudo-philosophical nonsense says.

It's really not nonsense. Lots and lots of people play war games without points. Society of Ancients don't even recognise GW games for lots of reasons and the obsession with balance is one of them. Try telling the society that they don't play a GAME.

The feth is society for the ancients?

Knockagh wrote:
It's really not nonsense. Lots and lots of people play war games without points. Society of Ancients don't even recognise GW games for lots of reasons and the obsession with balance is one of them. Try telling the society that they don't play a GAME.

Then what balance mechanism do they use?
If none, how the hell is that a good thing?!

 Desubot wrote:
The feth is society for the ancients?

http://soa.org.uk/joomla/

They only play war games as a war game. Stuffy lot but still they carry the heart of war gaming. The hobby, not GW, but the whole hobby of war gaming has a little history and is bigger than GW.

It seems like the kinda group that ONLY plays historical war games

naturally they would avoid GW stuff since its not really history.

Still waiting for the answer to my question though.

Yes they only play historical but that's neither here or there. The point is they quite successfully play WARGAMES without obsessing over balance. They replay battles, real ones, we could replay imagined ones without points or balance.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Still waiting for the answer to my question though.

They are sensible.

Its not really a game at that point. its more historical reenactment.

Since they know what they start with

and they know how it should finish.

They know one side with have x cavalierly and one will be in the open field or whatever.

though this is from my vague understanding of what they do.

so take that with a dumpster of salt.

I can sympathise with Knockagh, balance is not at all important to some of us, its only really needed when it comes to some competitive tournaments for certain games.

Its not just historical re enactments that have unbalanced games either, blood bowl seems to be doing just fine and theres plenty of gobbo and fling teams out there.

GW gamers seem almost as fascinated with it as world of warcraft players are nowadays.

Having said that. this is the tourney section so i will pipe down now.

Knockagh wrote:
They are sensible.

That doesn't really answer it, either.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Knockagh wrote:
They are sensible.

That doesn't really answer it, either.

Then you will never understand.

Knockagh wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Knockagh wrote:
They are sensible.

That doesn't really answer it, either.

Then you will never understand.

Actually I will, as soon as you answer the bloody question instead of dodging it for absolutely no reason!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here, will quote it for ease of answering:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Knockagh wrote:
It's really not nonsense. Lots and lots of people play war games without points. Society of Ancients don't even recognise GW games for lots of reasons and the obsession with balance is one of them. Try telling the society that they don't play a GAME.

Then what balance mechanism do they use?
If none, how the hell is that a good thing?!

Balancing a game point wise is quite a bad idea actually, you are assuming that single models strenghts build up linearly to a goal. That, as we all know, is false. There will always be force multilpliers, critical masses, synergies and so on and so on.

Now, i don't posses a better way to balance stuff, but if GW is trying to made the jump and propose something new on that front, then kudos to them. If with AoS they show me something new and convincing then Age of the Emperor can't come soon enough.

Points, or gtfo

Reenacting battles with set forces and set outcomes isnt what I want in a fantasy game.

Oh gosh, it's been a while since I'd been on a forum, and I'd forgotten how many people ignore what each other say so they can rant angrily...

OP, I agree that removing the structure from a tournament is a bad thing for Warhammer overall. Personally, I very much like lists, point values for things, and trying to squeeze as much worth out of things. I love the story of this game, I love the depth, and I find a lot of the flubb over the years endearing - but I am also a competitive gamer, and removing a balancing system from the game removes a huge part of my enjoyment.

If you don't agree with this, you don't have to get annoyed, you know. People play games in different ways, and enjoying how you play it isn't wrong. I was so surprised that no one replied to the rules pack snippet for the AoS event - if you have a picture of a cat, you get a bonus? If you have skulls on your models, you get a bonus? That's ridiculous. That's not game balance, it's encouragement to pretend you have a dog and to edit models that you might have been happy with un-skulled.

I really hope that 40K keeps it's point system, and it's relative complexity, and that GW keep supporting the game in a way that allows a competitive tournament to be structured. If you dislike it, but want to play the game you can always choose to ignore it. But you can't re-add an objective balancing system to a game that doesn't have one on the fly.

Nidzrule! wrote:

Btw the crash on the ToS event for HH was caused by a glitch in the system rather than a total sellout as published on the WHW website. Remains to be seen how many people will eventually turn up. It's an interesting experiment but I am afraid what conclusions GWHQ will draw from it.

Source for this? Because, two separate sources told me that it crashed due to sheer weight of numbers trying to get on at 8:00 am which caused the issue.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm genuinely curious as well as to how many of the posters who are against the loosening (not losing - big difference) of points restrictions actually had intent to go to the ToS?

To start wailing that the sky is falling in is a little premature at best, immature at worst.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

Knockagh wrote:
It's really not nonsense. Lots and lots of people play war games without points. Society of Ancients don't even recognise GW games for lots of reasons and the obsession with balance is one of them. Try telling the society that they don't play a GAME.

Then what balance mechanism do they use?
If none, how the hell is that a good thing?!

I think this is the question you were asking. If not I lost it in all of the noise.
As far Them: I don't know them so I can't Answer for them.

For Me and my Group: You must ask what is fair and Balanced. It comes down to so many factors that a Points system can only be a gauge, but an imperfect gauge. Where you can measure how effective one model is to another it becomes harder when you start to add other to a mix and Synergy starts to happen.
You also have to look at how each army was designed to play vs how each player plays the same army.
Very Quickly the points system becomes a flawed system. The only way a Point System can remain 'Balanced' is for both players to have a true balance is to play the exact same list on a mirrored Terrain Table. That also is not perfect because of play styles and I won't get into 'Luck of the Dice'.
So we sort of stopped trying. When we set up to play a game we currently set a points limit (Our Normal is 2k), but then we try to set up scenarios that either play against or to each armies Strengths and/or Weaknesses. This things like If have my Gunline Guard and Billy-Bob has his Orks we may pull out my Hill42 Terrain piece that is a Vietnam Style Fire-Base Hill filled with Trenches, Razor-wire and a Command Tower in the center. We then let the Ork Player Deploy from any Table-side he wants, but he must deploy from all 4 sides. The way the hill is set up this gives him an average Deployment distance of 12"-24".
This makes it hard on the Guard Gunline because I will probably be Assaulted on turn in some locations, but a lot of the Orks have to cross a lot of open terrain and make lots of Dangerous Terrain test.
The games are quick and brutal, but we have a blast. We have even done 3,000 points of Orks vs 1,500 points of Guard that way using a 5 turn Planet Strike type of deployment.
At that point we have gone from 'Two Forces Meet In The Field' to running a 'Forging The Narrative Scenario' based game where Balanced Forces are not that important, in fact sometimes a "Balanced Force" set up might ruin the battle.

TL;DR: It takes both players to plan set up fun things when you don't worry about points.

Funny. Outside of GW games, points work pretty good.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Funny. Outside of GW games, points work pretty good.

Lol, no.

At least for Warma/Hordes i can easily tell you that.

Spoletta wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Funny. Outside of GW games, points work pretty good.

Lol, no.

At least for Warma/Hordes i can easily tell you that.

There's more game companies out there than Privateer Press and Games Workshop.

Corvus Belli and Wyrd manage to make very, very balanced games using points systems.

I can agree, or at least i can give you the benefit of doubt since i don't know those games.

But then don't say "Outside of GW" if the other major game company is afflicted by the same issue (even worse since PP games are sinergy based), you risk passing as a clueless GW hater.

 -Loki- wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Funny. Outside of GW games, points work pretty good.

Lol, no.

At least for Warma/Hordes i can easily tell you that.

There's more game companies out there than Privateer Press and Games Workshop.

Corvus Belli and Wyrd manage to make very, very balanced games using points systems.

Yes but recognizing that those games/companies exist doesn't allow people to make pithy, sideways pro-GW comments. I would argue that even though PP's points system is imperfect,.that they at least try to balance their games and have a strong history of post-release support vs the GW model of release and forget (FAQs and errata are for sissies and WAAC gamers only apparently).

 -Loki- wrote:
Corvus Belli and Wyrd manage to make very, very balanced games using points systems.

Every new game is "very, very balanced" according to people who used to be blind GW fans and were "born again" into GW haters and blind whatever-fans. Once you get a good pool of sensible people playing and the novelty of having at least some semblance of balance wears off, all the usual problems inherent with points systems come up, and it becomes clear that the semblance of balance really is just a semblance.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Corvus Belli and Wyrd manage to make very, very balanced games using points systems.

Every new game is "very, very balanced" according to people who used to be blind GW fans and were "born again" into GW haters and blind whatever-fans. Once you get a good pool of sensible people playing and the novelty of having at least some semblance of balance wears off, all the usual problems inherent with points systems come up, and it becomes clear that the semblance of balance really is just a semblance.

I fail to see how that's worse than not even a close approximation of balance. I do agree that newer systems have less moving parts than 40K with its 20 years of bloat and baggage but there's a great difference between attempting to create balance before and, shocking I know, after release and what GW does, just throw some crap together, copy and paste some background that somebody wrote 15 years ago and then call it done.

Though I'm not a fan of WM/H, I have played it a few times and have to say that the creators have done a good job with a daunting task of creating even that semblance you mentioned in a game that is all about synergy, like MtG and like MtG it takes a great deal of work to keep the whole thing from just flying apart due to all of the competing synergistic elements.

It's not worse, GW is certainly near the bottom in this regard. Just saying that GW's immediate satellites get praise based more on anti-GW bias than on their own merit. It's a sad state of affairs when smaller companies advertise themselves by stating in what ways they are different from GW, or even actively mock it, and when the default defense that fanboys fall back on every time PP or CB or BF or Wyrd or Mantic do something boneheaded is "this is okay because GW is even worse."

All I hear is people making the perfect the enemy of the good.


There's been good points raised, as in its hard to account for synergy and force multipliers in a point cose that doesn't change regardless of context .

With that said, we all know deep down the point costs aren't right on the money and often for reasons above. With that said though, how is an imperfectly pointed system worse than not having any poinst?

The answer is it isn't. At every oppertunity in the damn brb jervis reminds you "this is just a set of guidelines, by all means do whatever you want" and the problem with that is nothing is stopping people from doing that to a tight ruleset, so why on earth is the ruleset so bloated and loose, there's no reason to take a ruleset and turn it into a bunch of suggestion for the sole benefit of the people who would do that regardless.

Jervis wants us all playing unbalanced scenarios. Thanks jervis, but no, a lot of us don't want to do that. Why? We have lives. No, seriously, I've done big involved scenarios but they take a lot of time to setup and play and worst of all if they're really one sided, a lot of people lose interest because of that and you can't blame them when a 40k game feels like space hulk and they're just the ai for their gamer friends to kill. At least we had a chance to even remotely attempt balance in the way of points limits, it's difficult enough with them, without them its just a waste of time. I think it's just hipster bs to look down on all the people who get in games whenever they can, the idea that everyone could or should be playing historical reenactments for 10 hours every thursday at their local flgs is ludicrous. The existence of a faster, less convoluted and potentially more balanced method of play doesn't detract from those who want to do more of a historical thing with 40k, there's no reason to ruin the fun of those players with less refined tastes (jervis's view of us lowly competitive peasants).

I also don't believe any human has truly evolved past basic human emotion. When people tell me they don't mind losing, ever, I tend to think they're full of gak.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Corvus Belli and Wyrd manage to make very, very balanced games using points systems.

Every new game is "very, very balanced" according to people who used to be blind GW fans and were "born again" into GW haters and blind whatever-fans. Once you get a good pool of sensible people playing and the novelty of having at least some semblance of balance wears off, all the usual problems inherent with points systems come up, and it becomes clear that the semblance of balance really is just a semblance.

Exept that hasn't happened? Infinitys been around for 10 years with massive expansion of the range over the last couple of years, and is still regarded as excellently balanced with few, if any, outright bad units and no 'autoincludes' due to power level. Malifauxs younger, but no less regarded since 2nd edition (admittedly, 1.5e was GW level bad, but they at least saw the issues and fixed them).

If AoS stays as its own DIY, freeform system I am happy. I just dont want it bleeding over in 40k.

At least in 40k there's the option of playing a narrative driven game if you want and throw points out the window if you wanted to recreate the various "historical" set piece battles. Other players who want a competitive event or pick up games have the choice to use the points system - imperfect though it may be.

So, just thought I'd post my experiences with the Battle Brothers 40k event last weekend at WHW. It was pretty enjoyable, if we didn't play anything but Imperium... However there were a few niggles. I don't wanna fan the flames and imply I think people should boycott the thing, that seems too extreme, but thought it'd add to the discussion.

Basically, the rules pack was Gods of War, so a focus on ICs. There was a unique detachment we had access to which was any 3 ICs from any codex that could all join each other. Fair enough. However, about a month before the event an addendum was released allowing each player (it was doubles) to take a single IC for free. Again, whilst free stuff, this isn't really an issue as everyone has access to the same thing, and most codexes can kit someone out to about 300 free points. The issue was that GW did not notify us, the attendees of this in any way. We happened across this addendum 3 days before the event whilst going to print off the rules pack - and as we are both new players we just don't have guys like Draigo or Dante lying around to slap onto our armies (which is what everyone else ended up doing). So we decked out our guys in as many upgrades as we could, but were still playing at around a 300+ pt deficit every game as a result.

The one other thing, which personally bugged me more, was that the event was advertised as being 'a mixture of maelstrom and eternal war, randomly determined'. Every single game was maelstrom - which again would have been fine had we known, but as it was we had an army which excelled in e war and suffers in maelstrom. We managed to pull out 2 wins anyway which I am pleased about - but GW needs to communicate things like this better in future.

Benlisted wrote:
GW needs to communicate things like this better in future.

Benlisted wrote:
GW

Benlisted wrote:
communicate

Sorry, I'm not picking on you here it just struck me as funny. We're talking about the same company that axed an entire game (WHFB) without so much as a note, hint or anything until 2 weeks before the release of its replacement (AoS). If people weren't looking at rumor sites, they had no way of knowing that their entire way of playing and enjoying a game for about 20 years was about to be completely invalidated.

Yeah, GW and communication don't really go together.

@Benlisted I am glad that you enjoyed the event as much as you could. Sadly, your experience of the addendum is symptomatic of the "anything goes" style of play that the WHW events team is trying to encourage with the recent events pack. It also speaks of the practical and very real problems that participants face when entering these events. Some posters in this thread have waved this away by saying that the event should be treated as having a good time playing different people and looking at "kickass" armies. The truth is that people like to win rather than lose and would prefer fair games rather than unfair ones - no matter how "kickass" the opposing army is.

This type of freeform event which plays fast and loose with points and in Benlisted's case, additional force selection choices, favours those with a significant and varied army collection. Having a set points system does not address this point entirely, but it helps if people KNOW for sure what they are in for.

I see your issue as well regarding the missions not being as advertised - usually the events team are pretty good with this (pre the relaunch of WHW) but have heard of issues with the running of events of late...

How many guys turned up at the battle brothers event?

@agnosto Benlisted was referring to WHW events team. To be fair those guys are really dedicated to their job and do, in general, run good events. For some reason, post the WHW relaunch, their MO has been to run events using this freeform philosophy, which also includes addenda to the rules packs prior to the event.

Nidzrule! wrote:

@agnosto Benlisted was referring to WHW events team. To be fair those guys are really dedicated to their job and do, in general, run good events. For some reason, post the WHW relaunch, their MO has been to run events using this freeform philosophy, which also includes addenda to the rules packs prior to the event.

I would argue that the "freeform philosophy" is companywide at this point and communications issues are synonymous with GW. I don't know that they even have a marketing or communications department (I could be wrong) since talking to your customers is probably as "otiose" as market research, if not more so. If a company can't be bothered to tell its customers that it is about to invalidate a play style that has been around for decades, I find it easy to believe that minutiae regarding changes to event rules would not be considered important either.

I feel for the guys/gals running the events because I imagine, as you say, that they care about doing their jobs well but they have to contend with a corporate culture that has been created by such upper management as Jervis Johnson who believe that narrative play is the only way to play and a balanced game is not even on anyone's radar in the company.

@agnosto Nick Bayton who runs the events is a great guy and I wish him the best of luck - I do not know how much is being dictated from above.

Like you I dont understand why WHW is now running Throne of Skulls like a campaign event but without a narrative. They already do true campaign events (Inquisition Wars) and I feel that players who want to play a series of fair and balanced games do not have that particular avenue available.

Btw in your references to JJ being the driving force behind the 'forge the narrative' structure are you also referring to his article in the Citadel Journal yonks ago?

Nidzrule! wrote:
@agnosto Nick Bayton who runs the events is a great guy and I wish him the best of luck - I do not know how much is being dictated from above.

Like you I dont understand why WHW is now running Throne of Skulls like a campaign event but without a narrative. They already do true campaign events (Inquisition Wars) and I feel that players who want to play a series of fair and balanced games do not have that particular avenue available.

Btw in your references to JJ being the driving force behind the 'forge the narrative' structure are you also referring to his article in the Citadel Journal yonks ago?

I believe that to be part of it, kind of reaffirmed more recently with an article he wrote in WD about a year or so ago about FAQs and how he believes people should just dice off when they don't understand a rule. Sure, people can change their perspective but it doesn't appear that Jervis has and he's in charge of long-range planning. The fact is that the old guard played their games very differently to how most of us do and JJ is pretty much the last one left so, if it quacks like a duck....

 -Loki- wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Corvus Belli and Wyrd manage to make very, very balanced games using points systems.

Every new game is "very, very balanced" according to people who used to be blind GW fans and were "born again" into GW haters and blind whatever-fans. Once you get a good pool of sensible people playing and the novelty of having at least some semblance of balance wears off, all the usual problems inherent with points systems come up, and it becomes clear that the semblance of balance really is just a semblance.

Exept that hasn't happened? Infinitys been around for 10 years with massive expansion of the range over the last couple of years, and is still regarded as excellently balanced with few, if any, outright bad units and no 'autoincludes' due to power level. Malifauxs younger, but no less regarded since 2nd edition (admittedly, 1.5e was GW level bad, but they at least saw the issues and fixed them).

And Warmachine has been around longer. Yes, their points isn't perfect but its a darn sight better than GW has managed for years. "Imperfect" doesn't mean "not good enough." And Infinity's balance is really quite well done.
And yes, balance is necessary for my enjoyment.

There were 36 teams at the event, which I believe was the full quota?

I would be much more bothered about the 'anything goes' approach if it were a competitive event like a GT - but the favourite game votes winning makes it clear it's not meant to be a hyper competitive environment. There is a niche for this type of tournament - I have some cool list ideas if I ever go to a throne of skulls that most places wouldn't allow due to detachment/formation restrictions, for instance. Allowing anything becomes an issue if you are trying to be a hyper competitive tourney, like the issue with the current UK GT rules pack (unlimited detachments, very little comp). In that sort of event I would be concerned about the same rules.

But yeah, whilst I wasn't going with the intent to stomp people, I do want a fair and reasonable game and prefer winning to losing (as most people do to some degree) and the lack of communicating changes did impair that. So yeah, that was the real issue as I saw it.

Anyway, I guess the reason I brought up the communication thing is that whilst I think AoS was mishandled, it is at the end of the day their game, and they don't have to tell us what they're doing with it. I don't like it and I think it's a stupid move, but we can't make them. Here, we signed up for something and paid in advance having seen a rules pack we liked - and then it was altered without notifying us. Luckily it didn't ruin the event for us, but it was enough to add a kind of annoyance at the odds being piled against us that I would rather have not had to feel.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Corvus Belli and Wyrd manage to make very, very balanced games using points systems.

Every new game is "very, very balanced" according to people who used to be blind GW fans and were "born again" into GW haters and blind whatever-fans. Once you get a good pool of sensible people playing and the novelty of having at least some semblance of balance wears off, all the usual problems inherent with points systems come up, and it becomes clear that the semblance of balance really is just a semblance.

Exept that hasn't happened? Infinitys been around for 10 years with massive expansion of the range over the last couple of years, and is still regarded as excellently balanced with few, if any, outright bad units and no 'autoincludes' due to power level. Malifauxs younger, but no less regarded since 2nd edition (admittedly, 1.5e was GW level bad, but they at least saw the issues and fixed them).

And Warmachine has been around longer. Yes, their points isn't perfect but its a darn sight better than GW has managed for years. "Imperfect" doesn't mean "not good enough." And Infinity's balance is really quite well done.
And yes, balance is necessary for my enjoyment.

Got to defend GW this time:


1) Infinity makes really good use of the point system, but not cause it is a godly entity compared to GW, but simply cause the point system is a really good balancing mechanic in small scale games.

2) WM/H on the other hand is in no way more balanced than GW. Now i don't know if something changed in the last 3 years, but when i used to be a really competitive Everblight player 70% of the list was already compiled by the time i choose my warlock.
AutoincludeMachine is by far not a good example of a balanced system. A well balanced system shows in letting the player field what he wants with small/minimal impact on list efficency. WM/H is the opposite of it.

 agnosto wrote:

Benlisted wrote:
GW needs to communicate things like this better in future.

Benlisted wrote:
GW

Benlisted wrote:
communicate

Sorry, I'm not picking on you here it just struck me as funny. We're talking about the same company that axed an entire game (WHFB) without so much as a note, hint or anything until 2 weeks before the release of its replacement (AoS). If people weren't looking at rumor sites, they had no way of knowing that their entire way of playing and enjoying a game for about 20 years was about to be completely invalidated.

Yeah, GW and communication don't really go together.

Well according to GW employees and their sycophants here the end times was your pre warning, and you should have bought the $600 paper weights that not only are still useful as fluff books, but were definitely not a bait and switch tactic.

agnosto wrote:


Sorry, I'm not picking on you here it just struck me as funny. We're talking about the same company that axed an entire game (WHFB) without so much as a note, hint or anything until 2 weeks before the release of its replacement (AoS). If people weren't looking at rumor sites, they had no way of knowing that their entire way of playing and enjoying a game for about 20 years was about to be completely invalidated.

Yeah, GW and communication don't really go together.

True and what's worse is the argument put forward that the name used for the last campaign 'end times' was an obvious clue what they were going to scrap the whole game in favour of the new nonsense. Even reading the rumours on here and other sites it was very hard for most people to believe that they were going to take such a drastic step. As you point out, the lack of communication was anothe feature and quite frankly appalling...

Ravenous D wrote:

Well according to GW employees and their sycophants here the end times was your pre warning, and you should have bought the $600 paper weights that not only are still useful as fluff books, but were definitely not a bait and switch tactic.

Well I remember speaking to staff members in my local Gw only a week or two before AoS popped and they were adamant that the changes from 8th would not be drastic or as bad as being predicted online so either their own staff didn't know in advance or...?

Nidzrule! wrote:
It's a sad state of affairs. The depth of the AoS isnt there. It will be fun for awhile but to me any initial "new game" shine wears out and what will be left - a shell of a once glorious game.

Warhammer 6th edition died almost a decade ago. Time to stop mourning it's loss!

 Lt. Donomar StubbornBull wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:

Well according to GW employees and their sycophants here the end times was your pre warning, and you should have bought the $600 paper weights that not only are still useful as fluff books, but were definitely not a bait and switch tactic.

Well I remember speaking to staff members in my local Gw only a week or two before AoS popped and they were adamant that the changes from 8th would not be drastic or as bad as being predicted online so either their own staff didn't know in advance or...?

They knew at least a month a head of time from the quarterly managers meeting in memphis, and were selling end times books right up to 2 weeks before release. But remember the end times was just fluff and stands alone as a story book for $100 just as well.

Well no one has volunteered that they will be attending the AoS campaign event. Will see how successful this has been in the next few months...

Spoletta wrote:

Got to defend GW this time:


1) Infinity makes really good use of the point system, but not cause it is a godly entity compared to GW, but simply cause the point system is a really good balancing mechanic in small scale games.

2) WM/H on the other hand is in no way more balanced than GW. Now i don't know if something changed in the last 3 years, but when i used to be a really competitive Everblight player 70% of the list was already compiled by the time i choose my warlock.
AutoincludeMachine is by far not a good example of a balanced system. A well balanced system shows in letting the player field what he wants with small/minimal impact on list efficency. WM/H is the opposite of it.

I wrote up a wall of text about Warmachine's balance, but this is all off topic. We agree on the part that matters to this thread's topic- games can be balanced using point values.

 Vaktathi wrote:

So it looks like it's a more "play 2K, if both you and your opponent want to play 2.5K, you can play that". Not quite as bad, but still pretty wonky for a tournament.

I'd say lame, yeah. I'd just say no to more than 2000 pts if my opponent wanted to increase it. In a tournament, 2000 points will already take a while to get to turn 4. No reason to make it take longer and only get in 3 turns.

Spoletta wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Corvus Belli and Wyrd manage to make very, very balanced games using points systems.

Every new game is "very, very balanced" according to people who used to be blind GW fans and were "born again" into GW haters and blind whatever-fans. Once you get a good pool of sensible people playing and the novelty of having at least some semblance of balance wears off, all the usual problems inherent with points systems come up, and it becomes clear that the semblance of balance really is just a semblance.

Exept that hasn't happened? Infinitys been around for 10 years with massive expansion of the range over the last couple of years, and is still regarded as excellently balanced with few, if any, outright bad units and no 'autoincludes' due to power level. Malifauxs younger, but no less regarded since 2nd edition (admittedly, 1.5e was GW level bad, but they at least saw the issues and fixed them).

And Warmachine has been around longer. Yes, their points isn't perfect but its a darn sight better than GW has managed for years. "Imperfect" doesn't mean "not good enough." And Infinity's balance is really quite well done.
And yes, balance is necessary for my enjoyment.

Got to defend GW this time:


1) Infinity makes really good use of the point system, but not cause it is a godly entity compared to GW, but simply cause the point system is a really good balancing mechanic in small scale games.

Not only that but Infinity effectively has two different points systems--the points of a model and the Special Weapons Cost of a profile.

And honestly Loki, "no autoincludes due to power level" is true but "autoincludes because of Specialist" is even more true.

The issues with points costs in both Infinity and WM/H are also mitigated by the simple fact that the two games circumvent the typical points-efficiency equations. In Infinity, you just need to take 10 different things and activate the best one for the current situation 10 times a turn while the rest fiddle their thumbs. A model is never useless because it can just pass on its action to a better model. And in WM/H the interactions between special abilities are far more important than individual model power. And yet, still, some units are clearly better deals than others.

Not to necropost, but I'm back from the first day of the Horus Heresy ToS event that kicked up such a fuss when it was announced.

And?

What an event so far! Pretty much all the players have brought 2k, 2.5k and 3k lists that can be swapped between depending on their opponent's ability to field the same points (or thereabouts). There's very little in the way of power gaming or cheese (yes, one guy has turned up with 3 war hounds, but he's not doing so well...), but what there has been is three great games with very little complaint..
and a full hall.

My three games so far have been great fun - one at 2.5k, one at 3k and 1 at 2k. All games are using the Maelstrom setups, with event specific strategy cards rather than the standard deck.

I'll post up a more detailed report tomorrow, but I'm knackered now and need food!

 Art Steventon wrote:
(yes, one guy has turned up with 3 war hounds, but he's not doing so well...)

Ah, the old friendwinner formation

 lord_blackfang wrote:
40k has already been Sigmar'd over the last decade, but it was so gradual that most people only caught on when Unbound dropped. There's nothing there worth saving, just like there wasn't in WHFB.

I wanted to believe in AoS but alas, I made the official jump to Warmahordes today. Lots of fun.

I like the W40K rules as they are for the most part, but I could easily live without points. I firmly believe people put too much importance on points and the game and community would be much better without them.

Points can unbalance as well as balance a game. Sadly when I read a lot of pro-point comments, the individual hasn't fully considered this. With no disrespect intended I don't think a lot of pro-point individuals can see the forest through the trees.

I suggest players try playing W40K, using all rules except points for army composition (forgoing Unbound)... Seriously, try it out... You may find that it's quite enjoyable.

No, they can't make it any more unbalanced. Having points can't make it any worse than not having them, because you can ignore them while not having them you can't just use them.

That's the thing that immediately completely torpedoes any anti-points sentiment.

 Art Steventon wrote:
Not to necropost, but I'm back from the first day of the Horus Heresy ToS event that kicked up such a fuss when it was announced.

And?

What an event so far! Pretty much all the players have brought 2k, 2.5k and 3k lists that can be swapped between depending on their opponent's ability to field the same points (or thereabouts). There's very little in the way of power gaming or cheese (yes, one guy has turned up with 3 war hounds, but he's not doing so well...), but what there has been is three great games with very little complaint..
and a full hall.

My three games so far have been great fun - one at 2.5k, one at 3k and 1 at 2k. All games are using the Maelstrom setups, with event specific strategy cards rather than the standard deck.

I'll post up a more detailed report tomorrow, but I'm knackered now and need food!

Glad to hear you enjoyed it! Did you take any pics?

Yeah, Warhound featured at the CoW too. Oddly that guy didn't get any fellowship votes out of all the matches.

 oni wrote:
I firmly believe people put too much importance on points and the game and community would be much better without them.

I hear AOS is really great







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Having points can't make it any worse than not having them, because you can ignore them while not having them you can't just use them.

That's the thing that immediately completely torpedoes any anti-points sentiment.

Exactly

 Crablezworth wrote:

 oni wrote:
I firmly believe people put too much importance on points and the game and community would be much better without them.

I hear AOS is really great

Maybe you should try playing it with people that aren't just looking to break the system?

I've yet to have a bad game of AoS--barring the ones where I was the one playing the Ambusher in "The Trap" scenario, running nothing but Wood Elf Waywatchers, a Waywatcher Lord, and Hunting Hounds of Orion.

Spoiler: It was great for me; no fun at all for the other person.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 oni wrote:
I firmly believe people put too much importance on points and the game and community would be much better without them.

I hear AOS is really great

Maybe you should try playing it with people that aren't just looking to break the system?

I've yet to have a bad game of AoS--barring the ones where I was the one playing the Ambusher in "The Trap" scenario, running nothing but Wood Elf Waywatchers, a Waywatcher Lord, and Hunting Hounds of Orion.

Spoiler: It was great for me; no fun at all for the other person.

I don't understand this assumption that wanting a baseline for a fair game = wanting to be a WAAC TFG.
With pick up games I don't want to bring my whole collection of models in order to negotiate what might be in the ballpark of a fair game.
"What faction? How many points?"
That's the level of negotiation I like and am used to.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 oni wrote:
I firmly believe people put too much importance on points and the game and community would be much better without them.

I hear AOS is really great

Maybe you should try playing it with people that aren't just looking to break the system?

I've yet to have a bad game of AoS--barring the ones where I was the one playing the Ambusher in "The Trap" scenario, running nothing but Wood Elf Waywatchers, a Waywatcher Lord, and Hunting Hounds of Orion.

Spoiler: It was great for me; no fun at all for the other person.

I don't understand this assumption that wanting a baseline for a fair game = wanting to be a WAAC TFG.

Admittedly, I should have clarified a bit more but my point was that it's actually a hard system to break unless you're REALLY trying to outside of a few outstanding circumstances. An example of this: "The Trap" scenario with someone who is running small units of ranged attackers against someone who is running a horde army means that the Ambusher[person with fewer models] could potentially have Sudden Death rules in effect, if they are outnumbered 2 to 1.

That is literally the only time I have seen an Age of Sigmar game end in a single round of shooting because of the nature of the mission and the units I ran. If I had known it would be like that, I would have altered the list since it was week one of our Escalation League.

With pick up games I don't want to bring my whole collection of models in order to negotiate what might be in the ballpark of a fair game.
"What faction? How many points?"
That's the level of negotiation I like and am used to.

Truthfully, the "level of negotiation" I have had to do so far has been as follows:
"What mission do you want to play? What Realm rules do you want to use?".
Everything else falls into place as the missions, much like the warscrolls themselves, give you all the pertinent information within.

Myself and a few others in my group have already switched from the mess that 40k is to AoS and are having a great time.Many more are taking note of AoS and its gaining in acceptance,maybe not so much from the WHFB competitive circles but more so from 40k and other game systems like warmahordes and such.

If AoS continues at this rate,players may actually start wanting to see 40k "Sigmar`d"

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
40k has already been Sigmar'd over the last decade, but it was so gradual that most people only caught on when Unbound dropped. There's nothing there worth saving, just like there wasn't in WHFB.

I wanted to believe in AoS but alas, I made the official jump to Warmahordes today. Lots of fun.

I was once like you - I got fed up with 40k and made the transition to Warmachine. I was bright-eyed and enthusiastic about a new game that the internet kept telling me was far superior, better balanced, had a better community, tighter rules system etc.

For the first few weeks, that was true. I was pleasantly surprised by how little it cost to set up an average size force, I was impressed by the evident focus on inter-model synergy, and my games against a friend were close-run things in which neither of us felt that we were playing at a disadvantage.

But then we decided to go to the FLGS to start playing other people, and my positive perception was utterly shattered.

Firstly, Warmachine isn't balanced - there are clearly superior options that anyone can identify, and if you don't take them you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Secondly (and this may just be the local scene) the game seems to actively promote this really bizarre puerile competitiveness. When we had our first few games, no one wanted to help us learn, and our questions about how certain rules interacted or how to get the best out of our units were met with apathy at best and bald derision at worst. We were told we had to 'get good' or 'play better', but we weren't given any advice as to how to do that. Upon our inevitable defeat, our opponents would openly gloat and criticise our lack of capability as they saw it.

Thirdly, there's almost no creative input aside from how you paint your models, and heaven forfend you paint them in anything other than the official colours displayed on the box! My friend was playing Cygnar and decided to paint his models green instead of the usual blue - he was constantly mocked and criticised for 'painting them the wrong colour', accused of being colourblind, and the FLGS owner even suggested (jokingly, I hope, but I'm not sure) not allowing him to play with the army until they were 'the proper colour'.

Needless to say, we never went back, although our tentative forays into other communities elsewhere have given us similar impressions, although not quite as extreme. I don't know quite what it is about the game that seems to generate this kind of behaviour, but I never experienced quite the same level of animosity when I was playing 40k.


40k is unbalanced, woefully so, I don't think anyone can really argue against that point. There are blatantly overcosted and undercosted units, the ruleset is fairly sloppy with confusing or unclear rules, and it can be very difficult to understand why GW write the things they do. But, for whatever reason, its communities seem to be more welcoming.

I suppose that's the takeaway from all this: the game doesn't matter, only the community in which you play. If you can find a Warmachine community that's welcoming and supportive and above all enhances your play experience, go for it. That's fantastic, and I hope the community sticks around forever. But if you can't find decent people to play with, don't keep playing Warmachine just because it's a tighter ruleset.

TL;DR: Rules and game don't matter, only the people you play with.

Dr. Delorean - I would venture to say alot of your complaint with Warmachine is based on your interaction with that group of players. My experience has been different. My local scene and going to Adepitcon was great and friendly and encouraging for new players.

I will agree there is sub-par units but I don't think anyone has ever said the units were balanced in the game, just that each faction is balanced against each other. Some are still better than others but the difference isn't really as vast and the differences in 40k.

Thimn wrote:
Dr. Delorean - I would venture to say alot of your complaint with Warmachine is based on your interaction with that group of players. My experience has been different. My local scene and going to Adepitcon was great and friendly and encouraging for new players.

This is the truth of it all. No matter how tight a rule set is, how balanced and competitive and tuned the game is, it will always, always come down to the local player base.

Even AoS, a "fun designed" game can be anything but excruciating if your community is comprised of TFG's.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:


I suppose that's the takeaway from all this: the game doesn't matter, only the community in which you play. If you can find a Warmachine community that's welcoming and supportive and above all enhances your play experience, go for it. That's fantastic, and I hope the community sticks around forever. But if you can't find decent people to play with, don't keep playing Warmachine just because it's a tighter ruleset.

TL;DR: Rules and game don't matter, only the people you play with.

I think that the play group -- finding like-minded opponents -- entirely determines the success or failure of a game.

But the game DOES matter, because it sets constraints on number or types of models and cost. If you're never going to be happy unless you're playing on a 8x12 table or with more than a hundred models a side, nothing you can do will make WMH or Infinity a good game for you; and if you want to keep your game under a $300 budget or don't want to spend more than an evening putting together your army, you'll never be able to enjoy 40k.

I think we're pretty lucky that we live and game in a time where there's something for everyone, from squad sized games to company-level, with prices from around a hundred bucks up to thousands of dollars. Whether you're in it to just play games or because you live to parade models, there's something for you. If you're investing significant amounts of time and money in the hobby/game, I think it's pretty important to find BOTH a game and playgroup that you'll be happy with.

http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2015/10/07/throne-of-skulls-horus-heresy-review/

write -up -- technically -- and some pics from the HH event.

 reds8n wrote:
http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2015/10/07/throne-of-skulls-horus-heresy-review/

Here's an alternative FW catalogue

There, fixed it for you

 reds8n wrote:
http://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/2015/10/07/throne-of-skulls-horus-heresy-review/

write -up -- technically -- and some pics from the HH event.

Ok, I hate GW's idiotic "tournament" rules as much as anyone, but if that's the level of painting those rules produce then I can learn to live with them...

Glad the guys enjoyed it. All the armies looked fantastic, given the models were fully FW and clearly the players had spent a lot of time and money on them.

My hope is that they run alternative events as well that can cater to a wider audience. 50 guys attended - there could be so many more, it was more than double before...

Taking a different spin on this than all the Sigmar naysayers

There are actually a couple things that would be nice to transfer from AOS to 40k.

The close combat system - piling into combats within 3 inches and shooting in close combat is awesome - so is rolling for charge distance and then choosing your target.

Simplified to hit, to wound - I've memorized the hit/wound charts but there are some people I know who just can't - this would be a lot better for them

Battleshock - this would be cool in 40k, and I think better than the flee/wipe whole unit mechanic in 40k

Funny thing is AoS is what brought me back into 40k after 5 years.

I think there are good and bad things about AoS. One thing that killed me about getting into 40k was how much the codex's cost. Models for both were awesome and came a long way though.