I know this must have been done a thousand times but...
Got back into Warhammer recently and picked up an AOS starter box, I enjoy modeling and painting as well as playing and really like the models, plus a codex to use my old 40k army upon first visit to a GW store
Reading the codex and thinking up ideas got me super excited to keep playing 40k and there are a great group of players near me
I like the AOS book a lot as well and there are good players for it too but right now it's waiting to get any attention until... A point system ....
The guy at the store told me sure no problem you can just figure out what's fair, but Ive played a few 40k games next to AOS games and it seems every time one side is clearly more powerful than the other
I will paint my models when I run out of 40k to work with but I'm really hoping for a point system. If it ain't broke, don't fix it? Was WHFB broken - and if it was - were points bad? I just can't see a game working well without points.
If I'm holding onto this box to paint and play once we get a good set of rules - will these be collection pieces or should I keep hoping - for official rules
True enough, but GW is investing quite a bit into all these new releases don't you think? What is wrong with AOS? I sort of like the new unit characteristics and to hit/to wound/rend balance- in theory. Is it more than that?
I don't know if GW will ever come out with a balancing/point-ish mechanism in the future, but fans have made various versions, such as www.scrollbuilder.com.
I think the game takes a slightly different mentality to the old way, more of a cooperative experience, where you're working with your opponent to have a fun game, not so much trying to list-craft your way into beating him.
its a laundry list of bad. I have played about 110 games of it and was enthusiastic about it before I actually played it, now I loathe it to the point of ditching GW altogether after playing since rogue trader and old hardback warhammer, its that bad. but as for the issue around points, GW should have done their homework and tested, played, and tested again a balancing mechanism, instead they didnt bother and gave us some lame "narrative" bs. which you can do in any game out there. the bases thing is just a mess, I have seen more arguments about distances and ranges in AoS than i did in any other game, and there were only a tiny group of us even willing to try. combat, especially when you have bigger games is just an abysmal mess. the rules are basically just rehashed watered down 40k/WHFB mixed. The closest we came to games that werent either 1 sided slaughters or complete snoozefests, were the old battallion boxes against each other. the warscrolls are good (even if i personally think the name is ridiculous) they are themselves easy enough to use. but overall the game scales very poorly. was rarely any fun, which the GW staffer constantly saying "now isnt this fun" and "see this is so much better than warhammer" while we were frustratedly trying to tolerate the shoddy rules didnt help. This game should have been so much better than it is, GW had a real opportunity to send warhammer out gracefully, then make a great game, they didnt bother, and it shows in the power creep already.
Wait a second. You can't compare to 40K. 40K is a fracking joke. 40K points? Really? Seriously? You know how unfair 40K points are right? AoS is better and more fair than 40K with points.
Yeah but at least it's something, a concrete system that allows customization but is held within bounds and does allow balance and rebelancing!! - and although I've yet to play really OP armies, and things are more complex and a lot different than when I used to play in third, at least everyone fights under the same system. I don't care if chaos units are underpowered, let the good guys have their advantage we can siege victory against the odds! But for AOS I'm looking at seraphon units, why would I ever take Saurus Warriors instead of temple guard, how can blood reavers stand up to liberators, nice models aside, without a point system - the absolute core of any take too game - I just don't see matches being fair - I play fun, and so my opponent has fun - but we both do, win or lose, with equal chance under the same system
Davor wrote: Wait a second. You can't compare to 40K. 40K is a fracking joke. 40K points? Really? Seriously? You know how unfair 40K points are right? AoS is better and more fair than 40K with points.
the comparison is not the points, its the model to model distance for coherency, the turn sequence, the shooting/combat, that kind of thing, believe me I concur completely on how awful 40k is.
Davor wrote: Wait a second. You can't compare to 40K. 40K is a fracking joke. 40K points? Really? Seriously? You know how unfair 40K points are right? AoS is better and more fair than 40K with points.
Just because 40k points aren't good for balancing doesn't mean points are bad.
I don't think AoS needs a point system to be enjoyed. Obviously if you're looking for competitive play you might want to go for an
other game. But personally, with custom scenarios and friends, while without using any point system, AoS games have been the best fun I've ever had table top gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also we should consider this is the first release of AoS. AoS 1 if you want. So who knows what can happen in AoS second edition =]
I played miniatures since the 80's. Even with a points system, I never saw a balanced game.
After setup, we usually knew who was going to win based on terrain and unit choice.
Some of that was paper-scissors-rock ("You brought a knife to a gun fight?"), but some of it was the fact that all point systems are merely an attempt at balancing and can't be perfect.
I'm sure there will be a points system sooner or later. There are several fan made systems already. There is also the Chaos Warband Path to Glory system that has a system for chaos armies.
Haechi wrote: I don't think AoS needs a point system to be enjoyed. Obviously if you're looking for competitive play you might want to go for an
other game. But personally, with custom scenarios and friends, while without using any point system, AoS games have been the best fun I've ever had table top gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also we should consider this is the first release of AoS. AoS 1 if you want. So who knows what can happen in AoS second edition =]
Probably the biggest key to what you said is the word "friends" any game can be great with friends, but pick up games with complete strangers that have no basis of comparison is hard. I had a hell of a time trying to work through warscrolls at pickup games at our gw. too many people who have too many different ideas, its not necessarily about "competition"
Yes friends, family, your local gaming community of friendly gamers... THIS is what GW made AOS for. If you want competitive play, this game is not for you. There are a lot of fantasy players badmouthing the game but I say remember past fantasy editions? One was so bad it only lasted months... months before the next edition was released with a new starter set. AOS has lasted more than a few months, has come out with several army books, campaign books, the app, and gorgeous models (all gw models are getting a lot better). Aos is selling and folks are enjoying it. I'd say if you have no friends or family, meet a core group of flgs 'strangers', befriend them, and learn the enjoyment of playing casual narrative games. If not, well aos is not for you and badmouthing it won't make those that enjoy it not enjoy it. Building a modular 8' x 4' table is also easy to do and very rewarding.
The internet, ebay, and direct only models are making the "stranger" pick up games at flgs go away. Besides, it is so much nicer playing in your home where you can drink, uncensor language, watch tv, play music, etc, whilst gaming and not have the smelly crowd playing cards, itching their faces, and trying to touch or take your models that many flgs have.
We have found balance with the 0-1 monster keyword, 0-2 hero keyword, and 7 max warscroll keyword limits (without duplicate scrolls). This limits power units, characters, and summoning shenanigans. Our games are always close and we have a lot of fun playing with our group of friends and wives. We have not tested all armies for balance but so far the tomb kings, stormcast, all chaos, high elves, dark elves, lizardmen, and bretonians all work well (do math hammer first and find the better 'elite' units, it is a small skirmish game that elite units do better in). Points would make the game easier for many but it wouldn't change what we have with the wound cap and limits spoken of earlier. There are also several different point systems made by gamers for gamers, which work well in the casual setting. In the end, points would end up like formation hammer/40k, in which a lions blade force gets 600 points of tanks for free... leading to a 2450 vs 1850 point army battle...
Well, gotta go and build my new kits I purchased for aos today (more high elves, dark elves, tomb kings, everchosen, and lizardmen)! Got an aos game tomorrow night to prepare for!
the thing is AoS like all war games IS a competitive game, its just not any good at it. noone is seriously going to go set up the models with the intent of being nothing more than a punching bag, AoS is not written that way, and it is no more narrative than any other game. It has scenarios that are meant to be won, it is not a balanced tournemant game, but it is by its very nature competitive. most of what I hear in these forums are people having to modify the game just to make it work, thats not a good thing its a design flaw. This is not a hate on AoS rant for the hell of it, its simply that this game should have been a lot better than what we got. accepting subpar products from GW guarantees you will continue to get subpar products.
Last game I played was a combined force of all order armies my friends and I have, set up all around the table 6" from the border, against our other friend who only played 4 necromancers and Neferata in the middle, trying to raise armies faster than we could destroy them. This was not a competitive game whatsoever and I have no idea what you're talking about.
you were in direct competition with the necromancers. if you could not destroy those army's you lost, if you did you won. It doesn't have to be cutthroat but that is most certainly competition.
If you want to play points there are a couple out there fanmade sites such as scrollbuilder.com that let's you set some points as a gauge, which I use loosely as I often use a couple of points lower than my opponents and more often than not have an equal fight or even gaining an upper hand sometimes. You'll also realise how different fan made points are different although its the same unit, which proves that there is no particular fairness in pointage systems. In one area, a unit could be strong but bring it to a different area with different meta, you get a different result. Still I would agree points is a quite way to find 'balance' quickly.
thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.
thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.
Of course. There is literally nothing you can do in aos that you can't in any other game*. As proof; give me an example of one.
obviously some systems will require more work; Bolt Action doesn't have rules for magic, for instance.
Edit: The game would need to at least cover troop based combat. You can't really do a Nagash Vs Orc battle using Blood Bowl, X-Wing or Battlefleet Gothic for example.
GW won't add points to AoS because somewhat ironically it means that no unit is pointless (to take).
As you may have picked up, opinion is divided...
As people have said, if you're after a straight-up balanced out of a book pitched battle type game, AoS vanilla isn't for you.
If you like the system but want points, there's various fan systems out there.
There are plenty of people who *do* enjoy AoS without points, MongooseMatt's blog posts are a great example of this.
AoS is intended to be a different experience to WFB.
endur wrote: I played miniatures since the 80's. Even with a points system, I never saw a balanced game.
After setup, we usually knew who was going to win based on terrain and unit choice.
Some of that was paper-scissors-rock ("You brought a knife to a gun fight?"), but some of it was the fact that all point systems are merely an attempt at balancing and can't be perfect.
I'm sure there will be a points system sooner or later. There are several fan made systems already. There is also the Chaos Warband Path to Glory system that has a system for chaos armies.
You have had a deprived childhood. I've been playing since the 80s too, and I've seen tons of balanced games, with or without points.
Back on topic, whether points are good or not, and whether GW can do points well or not, it definitely looks like GW have no intention of putting points into AoS.
If you want a points system for the game, it's best to look into the various fan creations.
I honestly don't think GW as a company has what it takes to make a good points system, age of sigmar is ok without if they put some effort into it as such.
As a naritive system I think it's really avrage right now, and needs work. But Could be worse and end up like 40k right :0
No points before they get what they aiming for right.
When GW writes points for AOS, that will be a sad day. Not only will all of the fan systems be killed in one fell swoop, but GW's long storied history of not doing points right will bring back units you always take, units you never take, and an internet meta that will start creating carbon copied point efficient lists everywhere.
I hope GW leaves AOS alone as far as points are concerned.
bleak wrote: If you want to play points there are a couple out there fanmade sites such as scrollbuilder.com that let's you set some points as a gauge, which I use loosely as I often use a couple of points lower than my opponents and more often than not have an equal fight or even gaining an upper hand sometimes. You'll also realise how different fan made points are different although its the same unit, which proves that there is no particular fairness in pointage systems. In one area, a unit could be strong but bring it to a different area with different meta, you get a different result. Still I would agree points is a quite way to find 'balance' quickly.
thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.
There are literally dozens of games that would recreate that fight far better than AoS could, mostly because there was nothing inherently "fantasy" about that battle. Brienne and Ramsay had different objectives entiretly, Ramsay won a decisive victory as Stannis and his army were effectively destroyed. Stannis living or dying was of no matter at the point his force was destroyed. While it would seem a no brainer that such a cavalry force would easily win, had the ground been icier or less forgiving or had Stannis withdrew quicker and in better order to the treeline (the show had half his army rout before contact) it could have been a more closely fought affair. It would have been done far better by a "historical game" and having played these scenarios ad nauseam, they usually result in middle mosh pits,. the nature of movement and combat in AoS almost ensures it, without discipline on players parts, its inevitable. points arent necessarily the answer, something with the warscrolls themselves seems to me the way to go. that even so many folks who enjoy AoS seem compelled to create comps or points, even GW itself has done limiting for running its own game, that is design flaw, not a good thing. As for the freedom to build armies, AoS suffers the same as warhammer in that regard, there simply are useless units and units that are clearly superior. after about our 30th game, it was blatantly obvious that this was the case. I am also not saying this game is beyond redemption, but it is certainly not very good in its current incarnation, Believe that this is not "the final product" any more than any other GW mainline game, there will be a 2nd, 3rd, etc edition of this game. GW has never "gotten it right" straight out of the gate with anything, this is no different. I think what would have helped it more, delay release by several months, put ALOT more effort into finding some balancing mechanism, completely divorce the old world and old characters. insist on 1 base type and make it the standard of measurement, then produce the game as it is with its new factions and new concepts. as it stands now its a string along with people wondering "is my army next" to be deleted. I have brettonia, tomb kings, wood elves and high elves. so while with these "1.0" warscrolls I can still play, but as my armies get deleted or mangled and discontinued the power creep will continue until either i get a new AoS army or just drop the game. had the rules been better written and less nonsensical, buying a new army would have been a good idea, fluff wise its whatever folks like, personally I the fluff the most. doing a complete 180 from its previous incarnation essentially without warning would have been mitigated by just making this a new game. What they produced now will mostly appeal to a smaller group, as I have said before I think this game is more popular in europe than here. In my state GW is already a non factor and i hold little hope our local GW will last. but thats not AoS thats just poor location, poor customer service, tiny shop etc...
Not disputing the whole post, but power creep is entirely the product of codifying balance badly. Power creep is by definition impossible in AoS because judging balance is done by players not the rule publishers, so efficacy of unit X or unit Y is judged in it's place in the local meta.
I understand how pile-ins controlling movement will naturally pull units further into proximity with other units - and this may be because I only play scenarios rather than pitched battles - but I have never had a game of AoS that featured the 'mosh in the middle' that people keep talking about as an inevitability in the game.
A few big combats involving multiple units, sure - but these will always occur in a game where controlling/destroying/defending something specific is part of the victory conditions.
Haechi wrote: I don't think AoS needs a point system to be enjoyed. Obviously if you're looking for competitive play you might want to go for an
other game. But personally, with custom scenarios and friends, while without using any point system, AoS games have been the best fun I've ever had table top gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also we should consider this is the first release of AoS. AoS 1 if you want. So who knows what can happen in AoS second edition =]
It's selling less than wfb did they won't make a 2nd edition it'll either be dropped like wfb or left to rot like the hobbit,
Haechi wrote: I don't think AoS needs a point system to be enjoyed. Obviously if you're looking for competitive play you might want to go for an
other game. But personally, with custom scenarios and friends, while without using any point system, AoS games have been the best fun I've ever had table top gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also we should consider this is the first release of AoS. AoS 1 if you want. So who knows what can happen in AoS second edition =]
[spoiler]
It's selling less than wfb did they won't make a 2nd edition it'll either be dropped like wfb or left to rot like the hobbit,
Haechi wrote: I don't think AoS needs a point system to be enjoyed. Obviously if you're looking for competitive play you might want to go for an
other game. But personally, with custom scenarios and friends, while without using any point system, AoS games have been the best fun I've ever had table top gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also we should consider this is the first release of AoS. AoS 1 if you want. So who knows what can happen in AoS second edition =]
[spoiler]
It's selling less than wfb did they won't make a 2nd edition it'll either be dropped like wfb or left to rot like the hobbit,
Evidence, please.
...and ruin a good rant? Shush. Oh, and pass the popcorn.
Haechi wrote: I don't think AoS needs a point system to be enjoyed. Obviously if you're looking for competitive play you might want to go for an
other game. But personally, with custom scenarios and friends, while without using any point system, AoS games have been the best fun I've ever had table top gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also we should consider this is the first release of AoS. AoS 1 if you want. So who knows what can happen in AoS second edition =]
[spoiler]
It's selling less than wfb did they won't make a 2nd edition it'll either be dropped like wfb or left to rot like the hobbit,
Evidence, please.
GW's sales continued to decline in their last financial report. That is the only evidence we have that it isn't selling as well, but there is no evidence it is selling better.
You're more than welcome to play with our group Haechi, I live in central Wisconsin about 3-4 hours north of the Illinois border.
Hobojebus, there is no evidence of this. Blanket statements don't work and show ignorance or intolerance. Intolerance against a game system is not a basis for blanket sale statements. GW Financials show an overall decrease, but 40k is responsible for over 70% of their business, which most likely is the decrease we are seeing (formation hammer, increasing costs, other game systems, etc. My flgs is constantly running out of fantasy kits since the release of aos.
The old product sitting on his shelf now are various 40k sets that aren't part of the foration hammer metta. Fantasy stuff had been collecting dust on his shelves since around 7th esition, when fantasy died around here, but it isn't anymore. It moves quickly enough that he can't keep full sets of any army in stock either.
Aos sales and health are geographically different. Most major gaming conventions were created in Wisconsin (gencon, etc, lots of wargamers here) so I use our game store sales as a basis of the game's health for a majority of the midwest.
Your area may be different but sales don't lie around here. Overall gw is selling fantasy product, and they are producing more. 40k on the other hand.... well that's a different story. That could be fixed with removing unbalanced formations, not invalidating $50 books every other year, or making formations that require vast expensive purchases that are not necessary.
GW's sales continued to decline in their last financial report. That is the only evidence we have that it isn't selling as well, but there is no evidence it is selling better.
There is no evidence it is doing worse, either. GW's total sales fell.
Without actual breakdown, it's possible that AoS is actually selling better, selling exactly the same or selling worse inside that total figure.
As said above, 40K accounts for a huge proportion of GW's annual sales and these have been declining faster since 2012 than the decline since 2010 which were the watershed years for WHFB and 40K.
Personally I think AoS probably is doing OK. It at least has allowed GW to cut a massive load of old books and they are starting to eliminate armies too (Tomb Kings) while launching smaller, more expensive new kits such as Varanguards.
GW's sales continued to decline in their last financial report. That is the only evidence we have that it isn't selling as well, but there is no evidence it is selling better.
There is no evidence it is doing worse, either. GW's total sales fell.
Without actual breakdown, it's possible that AoS is actually selling better, selling exactly the same or selling worse inside that total figure.
Well that could also mean that AoS hurt peoples confidence in GW entirely and it is influencing their 40k purchases as well.
Either way we will probably not know for awhile. Most fantasy sales in the last 6 months might well have been driven more by people getting the minis for their fantasy armies now before they disappear.
So AoS COULD be selling badly...I mean how many of those sales are Stormcast? It's hard to say until GW finishes their cleansing of the minis and all that is left is AoS. If fantasy was only 15% of GW sales and AoS is only 15% of GW sales I would say it is very much a failure.
And to match this to the OP, sales -/+ won't make a change which sees AoS suddenly add points (and thus not work with the Battleplans in the campaign books).
I play AoS both with and without points. I like points values so I can crunch numbers for list building, but vanilla AoS is enjoyable too.
Most important thing with AoS vanilla for me is clearly defining forces (incl. summoning) before the game begins so we can make sure it starts balanced and remains balanced through-out too :-)
thekingofkings wrote: its a laundry list of bad. I have played about 110 games of it and was enthusiastic about it before I actually played it, now I loathe it to the point of ditching GW altogether after playing since rogue trader and old hardback warhammer, its that bad. but as for the issue around points, GW should have done their homework and tested, played, and tested again a balancing mechanism, instead they didnt bother and gave us some lame "narrative" bs. which you can do in any game out there. the bases thing is just a mess, I have seen more arguments about distances and ranges in AoS than i did in any other game, and there were only a tiny group of us even willing to try. combat, especially when you have bigger games is just an abysmal mess. the rules are basically just rehashed watered down 40k/WHFB mixed. The closest we came to games that werent either 1 sided slaughters or complete snoozefests, were the old battallion boxes against each other. the warscrolls are good (even if i personally think the name is ridiculous) they are themselves easy enough to use. but overall the game scales very poorly. was rarely any fun, which the GW staffer constantly saying "now isnt this fun" and "see this is so much better than warhammer" while we were frustratedly trying to tolerate the shoddy rules didnt help. This game should have been so much better than it is, GW had a real opportunity to send warhammer out gracefully, then make a great game, they didnt bother, and it shows in the power creep already.
Really weird you would play 110 games of something you loathe so much. I really find some of your claims to be very suspect in general.
You may hate AoS but tons of people love it and it's steadily growing and picking up steam.
If you didn't enjoy the games you did play I would recommend the SCGT pack for great missions, points and some basic house rules.
@OP not having points is the best part of this game. The player points are much better than anything GW would have published and you actually can give input. I really love this aspect of AOS.
If AoS was doing well independent stores wouldn't be selling it at 45-50% on ebay, that's just getting the money back they paid they are making zero profit.
If it were popular surely they could sell 1k limited edition books, but we know not one has sold out and GW sent the unsold stock free to stores as a promotional item.
If it was worth stocking independent stores wouldn't be cutting ties with GW completely but they are.
The financial reports is clear model sales are down 4% there is no doubt BaC sold well so if that was a success the only logical deduction is AoS did not.
There's tons of evidence AoS is doing poorly but sure bury your heads in the sand it won't change the facts.
hobojebus wrote: If AoS was doing well independent stores wouldn't be selling it at 45-50% on ebay, that's just getting the money back they paid they are making zero profit.
If it were popular surely they could sell 1k limited edition books, but we know not one has sold out and GW sent the unsold stock free to stores as a promotional item.
If it was worth stocking independent stores wouldn't be cutting ties with GW completely but they are.
The financial reports is clear model sales are down 4% there is no doubt BaC sold well so if that was a success the only logical deduction is AoS did not.
There's tons of evidence AoS is doing poorly but sure bury your heads in the sand it won't change the facts.
Sorry I haven't seen 50% eBay stock in a very long time when lots of people reduced their WHFB stock. Since the new starter kits, book releases and models there has been a large spike of intrest in many places. Tournaments are beginning to get some good numbers I.e. SCGT has around 150 already signed up.
AOS started out on rough ground no one can deny it. The community is likely still smaller than WHFB (though likely now buying more), but there is no denying it's gaining popularity in some areas and drawing in new players. Especially for a guy in the UK you should know this.
GW will not release a balance mechanism. AoS has been purposefully designed without a balance mechanism to reduce the amount of effort the system takes to maintain and further open to introducing new models. What really takes time and effort in a game is balance, assuring that all players have a more or less equal chance to beat the game. By culling this part of game design, you save most of your work.
...and really, do you trust the same company that currently entertains the 40k ruleset, to come up with a half-way decent points system?
hobojebus wrote: If AoS was doing well independent stores wouldn't be selling it at 45-50% on ebay, that's just getting the money back they paid they are making zero profit.
Except the physical & online retailers *I* use are doing brisk trade.
See how subjectivity can be unreliable?
hobojebus wrote: If it were popular surely they could sell 1k limited edition books, but we know not one has sold out and GW sent the unsold stock free to stores as a promotional item.
Except these books are limited edition ephemera - they don't even contain stuff that is required to play the game, so aren't a measure of the system's popularity on their own like previous limited edition rulebooks, codices or army books. Total collector item.
hobojebus wrote: If it was worth stocking independent stores wouldn't be cutting ties with GW completely but they are.
That means they're binning GW, not just AoS. Meaning the 40k sales aren't worth it for them. Which brings me to...
hobojebus wrote: The financial reports is clear model sales are down 4% there is no doubt BaC sold well so if that was a success the only logical deduction is AoS did not.
No, no it isn't. It is one of a number of options. After all, if so many indie stores are binning GW completely, then that hits sales of everything.
hobojebus wrote: There's tons of evidence AoS is doing poorly but sure bury your heads in the sand it won't change the facts.
No, there are facts that in your opinion mean AoS is doing badly, but the only actual proofs of this - GW binning AoS completely or providing sales breakdowns of each line - aren't available to us.
So until that happens, it's all hearsay really.
GW won't amend AoS beyond tweaks. If it *is* Fantasy's last roll of the dice, there are those who will enjoy going down with the ship.
I'm sure however badly AoS might be doing -- and I think it's probably doing okay -- GW will go on with it for two years. (Another 16 months from now, really, as it launched in July last year.)
Even if AoS was a disaster it would take a year to be sure it can't be turned around, and another year to build up a replacement game.
Kilkrazy wrote: I'm sure however badly AoS might be doing -- and I think it's probably doing okay -- GW will go on with it for two years. (Another 16 months from now, really, as it launched in July last year.)
Even if AoS was a disaster it would take a year to be sure it can't be turned around, and another year to build up a replacement game.
Yeah GW won't turn the boat around until they give sufficient time to see how their investment plays out. AoS had a rough start mostly because vets cried out in horror....but the game was never meant for us because we were not buying enough anyway, hence the new game to draw in new blood. The free rules for our old armies were designed to pick up who they could into the system before they axed the armies (See Tomb Kings).
If that new blood means sales end up above Fantasy then mission accomplished. If it is below, failure....heck if it is the same level of sales then it's also a failure so all we can do is wait and see. If it doesn't pan out I imagine 2nd Edition AoS will put slightly more effort into the design to try and salvage what they can.
GW adding a point system would not be a good thing for AoS.
Those of us who play the game enjoy either just matching up forces that we gather or using one of the many good fan comps out there.I would say at this point,if for some reason they did add points ,,most all of us regular players wouldn't use them anyway.
Minijack wrote: GW adding a point system would not be a good thing for AoS.
Those of us who play the game enjoy either just matching up forces that we gather or using one of the many good fan comps out there.I would say at this point,if for some reason they did add points ,,most all of us regular players wouldn't use them anyway.
In which case, the addition of points wouldn't hurt you at all, but may help bring in other players who would prefer to be able to have roughly balanced forces for unplanned games.
Minijack wrote: GW adding a point system would not be a good thing for AoS.
Those of us who play the game enjoy either just matching up forces that we gather or using one of the many good fan comps out there.I would say at this point,if for some reason they did add points ,,most all of us regular players wouldn't use them anyway.
In which case, the addition of points wouldn't hurt you at all, but may help bring in other players who would prefer to be able to have roughly balanced forces for unplanned games.
So how would this not be a good thing for AoS?
Because it would lead to yet another b!tch fest on how GW cant set point values correctly,just like it has for both fantasy and 40k for the last 20 years or so....
If you need to have a point system for games you play,then for AoS there is several fan comps that work just fine,,if that doesn't do it,then AoS isint for you..simple as that.
GW dropping points and leaving it up to fans is one of the best moves they have made in years...look for 40k to be next..
thekingofkings wrote: its a laundry list of bad. I have played about 110 games of it and was enthusiastic about it before I actually played it, now I loathe it to the point of ditching GW altogether after playing since rogue trader and old hardback warhammer, its that bad. but as for the issue around points, GW should have done their homework and tested, played, and tested again a balancing mechanism, instead they didnt bother and gave us some lame "narrative" bs. which you can do in any game out there. the bases thing is just a mess, I have seen more arguments about distances and ranges in AoS than i did in any other game, and there were only a tiny group of us even willing to try. combat, especially when you have bigger games is just an abysmal mess. the rules are basically just rehashed watered down 40k/WHFB mixed. The closest we came to games that werent either 1 sided slaughters or complete snoozefests, were the old battallion boxes against each other. the warscrolls are good (even if i personally think the name is ridiculous) they are themselves easy enough to use. but overall the game scales very poorly. was rarely any fun, which the GW staffer constantly saying "now isnt this fun" and "see this is so much better than warhammer" while we were frustratedly trying to tolerate the shoddy rules didnt help. This game should have been so much better than it is, GW had a real opportunity to send warhammer out gracefully, then make a great game, they didnt bother, and it shows in the power creep already.
Really weird you would play 110 games of something you loathe so much. I really find some of your claims to be very suspect in general.
You may hate AoS but tons of people love it and it's steadily growing and picking up steam.
If you didn't enjoy the games you did play I would recommend the SCGT pack for great missions, points and some basic house rules.
@OP not having points is the best part of this game. The player points are much better than anything GW would have published and you actually can give input. I really love this aspect of AOS.
Fair enough,we dont actually know each other after all, but truth is, I didn't start out hating it, I really wanted to like it (except the fluff, I hated sigmar in whfb and his own novels, hate him still) ,. but the more i played the more i began to hate it to the point what i haven't traded away I threw away. as for tons loving it, may be true where you are, but definately not true here, it was the same small group of us each weekend. I still dont think "points" is the way to go forward, something else maybe. maybe pointless to say, but I make no judgment on any game until I have at least played 50 games of it. I like to try all its quirks first, but AoS really got boring fast, so fast that only carnage and leviathan could compete for most lame game I have played.
What people seem to ignore with the "but you can do that in any game" stuff and also in relation to points is that direction from the top heavily influences how people use a product. Not having points, and many of the other aspects of how AoS was designed, are clearly trying to push gamers to play and think about the hobby in a different way from before. If GW adds in points, which is possible some day, that becomes the de facto standard way to play and the entire tone of the game changes. That's not to say I don't like playing with points in the fan-made systems.
bleak wrote: If you want to play points there are a couple out there fanmade sites such as scrollbuilder.com that let's you set some points as a gauge, which I use loosely as I often use a couple of points lower than my opponents and more often than not have an equal fight or even gaining an upper hand sometimes. You'll also realise how different fan made points are different although its the same unit, which proves that there is no particular fairness in pointage systems. In one area, a unit could be strong but bring it to a different area with different meta, you get a different result. Still I would agree points is a quite way to find 'balance' quickly.
thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.
There are literally dozens of games that would recreate that fight far better than AoS could, mostly because there was nothing inherently "fantasy" about that battle. Brienne and Ramsay had different objectives entiretly, Ramsay won a decisive victory as Stannis and his army were effectively destroyed. Stannis living or dying was of no matter at the point his force was destroyed. While it would seem a no brainer that such a cavalry force would easily win, had the ground been icier or less forgiving or had Stannis withdrew quicker and in better order to the treeline (the show had half his army rout before contact) it could have been a more closely fought affair. It would have been done far better by a "historical game" and having played these scenarios ad nauseam, they usually result in middle mosh pits,. the nature of movement and combat in AoS almost ensures it, without discipline on players parts, its inevitable. points arent necessarily the answer, something with the warscrolls themselves seems to me the way to go. that even so many folks who enjoy AoS seem compelled to create comps or points, even GW itself has done limiting for running its own game, that is design flaw, not a good thing. As for the freedom to build armies, AoS suffers the same as warhammer in that regard, there simply are useless units and units that are clearly superior. after about our 30th game, it was blatantly obvious that this was the case. I am also not saying this game is beyond redemption, but it is certainly not very good in its current incarnation, Believe that this is not "the final product" any more than any other GW mainline game, there will be a 2nd, 3rd, etc edition of this game. GW has never "gotten it right" straight out of the gate with anything, this is no different. I think what would have helped it more, delay release by several months, put ALOT more effort into finding some balancing mechanism, completely divorce the old world and old characters. insist on 1 base type and make it the standard of measurement, then produce the game as it is with its new factions and new concepts. as it stands now its a string along with people wondering "is my army next" to be deleted. I have brettonia, tomb kings, wood elves and high elves. so while with these "1.0" warscrolls I can still play, but as my armies get deleted or mangled and discontinued the power creep will continue until either i get a new AoS army or just drop the game. had the rules been better written and less nonsensical, buying a new army would have been a good idea, fluff wise its whatever folks like, personally I the fluff the most. doing a complete 180 from its previous incarnation essentially without warning would have been mitigated by just making this a new game. What they produced now will mostly appeal to a smaller group, as I have said before I think this game is more popular in europe than here. In my state GW is already a non factor and i hold little hope our local GW will last. but thats not AoS thats just poor location, poor customer service, tiny shop etc...
I see, dozen of games that would, but I have honestly never seen any games like it before though, whereas it can easily be replicated as "The trap" Battleplan in one of the AoS books. And also, sure, Ramsey won the victory, but he didn't get to Stannis. From your perspective, its all about competitive gaming. One force wiping out the other, which makes you lose sight of what AoS is about, which makes you not understand why things are being done one way or another. From AoS gamer's perspective, it is an epic game, which sure, Ramsey won, but only a minor, as a third party was the one who dealt the killing blow. Or heck, we don't even know Stannis' fate who could make a return somehow to change the narrative of the game. Sure other game systems could do it, and may do it better. But what is the point when you have to house rule those games as well? And more importantly, if you can't find a game, then it defeats the purpose of having that game in the first place right? For AoS, I could just ask someone if they want to play a game like that and its mostly yes.
bleak wrote: If you want to play points there are a couple out there fanmade sites such as scrollbuilder.com that let's you set some points as a gauge, which I use loosely as I often use a couple of points lower than my opponents and more often than not have an equal fight or even gaining an upper hand sometimes. You'll also realise how different fan made points are different although its the same unit, which proves that there is no particular fairness in pointage systems. In one area, a unit could be strong but bring it to a different area with different meta, you get a different result. Still I would agree points is a quite way to find 'balance' quickly.
thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.
There are literally dozens of games that would recreate that fight far better than AoS could, mostly because there was nothing inherently "fantasy" about that battle. Brienne and Ramsay had different objectives entiretly, Ramsay won a decisive victory as Stannis and his army were effectively destroyed. Stannis living or dying was of no matter at the point his force was destroyed. While it would seem a no brainer that such a cavalry force would easily win, had the ground been icier or less forgiving or had Stannis withdrew quicker and in better order to the treeline (the show had half his army rout before contact) it could have been a more closely fought affair. It would have been done far better by a "historical game" and having played these scenarios ad nauseam, they usually result in middle mosh pits,. the nature of movement and combat in AoS almost ensures it, without discipline on players parts, its inevitable. points arent necessarily the answer, something with the warscrolls themselves seems to me the way to go. that even so many folks who enjoy AoS seem compelled to create comps or points, even GW itself has done limiting for running its own game, that is design flaw, not a good thing. As for the freedom to build armies, AoS suffers the same as warhammer in that regard, there simply are useless units and units that are clearly superior. after about our 30th game, it was blatantly obvious that this was the case. I am also not saying this game is beyond redemption, but it is certainly not very good in its current incarnation, Believe that this is not "the final product" any more than any other GW mainline game, there will be a 2nd, 3rd, etc edition of this game. GW has never "gotten it right" straight out of the gate with anything, this is no different. I think what would have helped it more, delay release by several months, put ALOT more effort into finding some balancing mechanism, completely divorce the old world and old characters. insist on 1 base type and make it the standard of measurement, then produce the game as it is with its new factions and new concepts. as it stands now its a string along with people wondering "is my army next" to be deleted. I have brettonia, tomb kings, wood elves and high elves. so while with these "1.0" warscrolls I can still play, but as my armies get deleted or mangled and discontinued the power creep will continue until either i get a new AoS army or just drop the game. had the rules been better written and less nonsensical, buying a new army would have been a good idea, fluff wise its whatever folks like, personally I the fluff the most. doing a complete 180 from its previous incarnation essentially without warning would have been mitigated by just making this a new game. What they produced now will mostly appeal to a smaller group, as I have said before I think this game is more popular in europe than here. In my state GW is already a non factor and i hold little hope our local GW will last. but thats not AoS thats just poor location, poor customer service, tiny shop etc...
I see, dozen of games that would, but I have honestly never seen any games like it before though, whereas it can easily be replicated as "The trap" Battleplan in one of the AoS books. And also, sure, Ramsey won the victory, but he didn't get to Stannis. From your perspective, its all about competitive gaming. One force wiping out the other, which makes you lose sight of what AoS is about, which makes you not understand why things are being done one way or another. From AoS gamer's perspective, it is an epic game, which sure, Ramsey won, but only a minor, as a third party was the one who dealt the killing blow. Or heck, we don't even know Stannis' fate who could make a return somehow to change the narrative of the game. Sure other game systems could do it, and may do it better. But what is the point when you have to house rule those games as well? And more importantly, if you can't find a game, then it defeats the purpose of having that game in the first place right? For AoS, I could just ask someone if they want to play a game like that and its mostly yes.
You are misrepresenting and incorrect about my perspectives. what I said in regards to AGoT, my explanation of the results has nothing to do with cometitive gaming nor is my perspective about it. In the shows version of events which may or may not be the books intent all they needed to do was remove Stannis as a contender, killing him was not necessary, hell even destroying his army completely wasnt necessary, just breaking it, and hence removing him from contention. . as for reenacting that battle, it is a historical style battle that AoS simply could not do, sure you could try 2 brettonian armies, but you would still miss what was happening. an army of stormcast doing something similar in manuever to say skaven or what have you is a poor copy of the Bolton cavalry force moving in on an essentially Baratheon infantry force, which originally was cavalry. for finding a game, thats local, here, you wont find an AoS game unless you are extremely lucky whereas you could get a historics game with little to no effort in any of the FLGS. as for compettitve, all wargames are competitive, you are each trying to win based on your objective. AoS is competitive.
bleak wrote: If you want to play points there are a couple out there fanmade sites such as scrollbuilder.com that let's you set some points as a gauge, which I use loosely as I often use a couple of points lower than my opponents and more often than not have an equal fight or even gaining an upper hand sometimes. You'll also realise how different fan made points are different although its the same unit, which proves that there is no particular fairness in pointage systems. In one area, a unit could be strong but bring it to a different area with different meta, you get a different result. Still I would agree points is a quite way to find 'balance' quickly.
thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.
There are literally dozens of games that would recreate that fight far better than AoS could, mostly because there was nothing inherently "fantasy" about that battle. Brienne and Ramsay had different objectives entiretly, Ramsay won a decisive victory as Stannis and his army were effectively destroyed. Stannis living or dying was of no matter at the point his force was destroyed. While it would seem a no brainer that such a cavalry force would easily win, had the ground been icier or less forgiving or had Stannis withdrew quicker and in better order to the treeline (the show had half his army rout before contact) it could have been a more closely fought affair. It would have been done far better by a "historical game" and having played these scenarios ad nauseam, they usually result in middle mosh pits,. the nature of movement and combat in AoS almost ensures it, without discipline on players parts, its inevitable. points arent necessarily the answer, something with the warscrolls themselves seems to me the way to go. that even so many folks who enjoy AoS seem compelled to create comps or points, even GW itself has done limiting for running its own game, that is design flaw, not a good thing. As for the freedom to build armies, AoS suffers the same as warhammer in that regard, there simply are useless units and units that are clearly superior. after about our 30th game, it was blatantly obvious that this was the case. I am also not saying this game is beyond redemption, but it is certainly not very good in its current incarnation, Believe that this is not "the final product" any more than any other GW mainline game, there will be a 2nd, 3rd, etc edition of this game. GW has never "gotten it right" straight out of the gate with anything, this is no different. I think what would have helped it more, delay release by several months, put ALOT more effort into finding some balancing mechanism, completely divorce the old world and old characters. insist on 1 base type and make it the standard of measurement, then produce the game as it is with its new factions and new concepts. as it stands now its a string along with people wondering "is my army next" to be deleted. I have brettonia, tomb kings, wood elves and high elves. so while with these "1.0" warscrolls I can still play, but as my armies get deleted or mangled and discontinued the power creep will continue until either i get a new AoS army or just drop the game. had the rules been better written and less nonsensical, buying a new army would have been a good idea, fluff wise its whatever folks like, personally I the fluff the most. doing a complete 180 from its previous incarnation essentially without warning would have been mitigated by just making this a new game. What they produced now will mostly appeal to a smaller group, as I have said before I think this game is more popular in europe than here. In my state GW is already a non factor and i hold little hope our local GW will last. but thats not AoS thats just poor location, poor customer service, tiny shop etc...
I see, dozen of games that would, but I have honestly never seen any games like it before though, whereas it can easily be replicated as "The trap" Battleplan in one of the AoS books. And also, sure, Ramsey won the victory, but he didn't get to Stannis. From your perspective, its all about competitive gaming. One force wiping out the other, which makes you lose sight of what AoS is about, which makes you not understand why things are being done one way or another. From AoS gamer's perspective, it is an epic game, which sure, Ramsey won, but only a minor, as a third party was the one who dealt the killing blow. Or heck, we don't even know Stannis' fate who could make a return somehow to change the narrative of the game. Sure other game systems could do it, and may do it better. But what is the point when you have to house rule those games as well? And more importantly, if you can't find a game, then it defeats the purpose of having that game in the first place right? For AoS, I could just ask someone if they want to play a game like that and its mostly yes.
You are misrepresenting and incorrect about my perspectives. what I said in regards to AGoT, my explanation of the results has nothing to do with cometitive gaming nor is my perspective about it. In the shows version of events which may or may not be the books intent all they needed to do was remove Stannis as a contender, killing him was not necessary, hell even destroying his army completely wasnt necessary, just breaking it, and hence removing him from contention. . as for reenacting that battle, it is a historical style battle that AoS simply could not do, sure you could try 2 brettonian armies, but you would still miss what was happening. an army of stormcast doing something similar in manuever to say skaven or what have you is a poor copy of the Bolton cavalry force moving in on an essentially Baratheon infantry force, which originally was cavalry. for finding a game, thats local, here, you wont find an AoS game unless you are extremely lucky whereas you could get a historics game with little to no effort in any of the FLGS. as for compettitve, all wargames are competitive, you are each trying to win based on your objective. AoS is competitive.
And by stating that you are misrepresenting AoS as a whole. You talk about how it cannot be done with AoS and can be done by other systems and yet you don't produce any example that could do the exact same thing that allows both side to play a fun and balanced narrative game. In AoS, one side may overpower the other side in terms of raw power and could wipe it out, and yet, that doesn't mean they secure victory. I was using AGoT as an example of it and you missed it completely, so I guess I have to apologise for that. I'm just saying points are just to make things seem fair when they really aren't and there is no fairness in battles. And objectives are there to make things interesting and 'fair' to both sides, using Stannis' last battle as an example. Even in the main 4 pages rulebook, the battle could go as shown with Stannis having lesser troops and thus having his sudden death victory score which is to endure, and he did heroically. Therefore, in game terms for AoS, the player using his army actually won. It does not represent what have happened in the show for sure since his army is wiped out and is no longer contending for the throne, but AoS is high fantasy where a hero that is not dead can rally armies up again, or heck, just have the hero try to escape being chased and play on from there. There are battleplans in the books which allow this kind of games to be played which I can say more than any other systems out there being played right now.
While nobody played AoS when I went back to the hobby at my local GW store, the manager, who is now my friend, told me right away he's out of Stormcasts every week and has to order new starter boxes every two weeks.
I loved AoS right from my first demo game, which I played with my friend who had a poor opinion on it. I pointed out the potential of the system and pushed him to start playing with me. Now 5 months later we have 6 armies, and with our joyful attitude and entertaining games we've swayed half of the store's core members into AoS.
coldgaming wrote: What people seem to ignore with the "but you can do that in any game" stuff and also in relation to points is that direction from the top heavily influences how people use a product. Not having points, and many of the other aspects of how AoS was designed, are clearly trying to push gamers to play and think about the hobby in a different way from before. If GW adds in points, which is possible some day, that becomes the de facto standard way to play and the entire tone of the game changes. That's not to say I don't like playing with points in the fan-made systems.
I don't think this so much at all, players don't really seem to be playing in a difernt way.
The lack of points hasn't really made the missions and more naritive driven, watching YouTube it looks almost standward. (Short of no points given)
Points can be used to great effect in naritive campaigns, I have played 2 for Warmachine and run 1 myself.
What has always been the issue with GW games has been poor rules for naritive games, which I think all age of sigmar really did was drop points..
Lack of points hasn't changed how people think so much, as force people to come up with creative solutions to play like they did before :(
Setting a standard for ease of play isn't bad, but GW isn't doing anything with its standard.
hobojebus wrote: If AoS was doing well independent stores wouldn't be selling it at 45-50% on ebay, that's just getting the money back they paid they are making zero profit.
If it were popular surely they could sell 1k limited edition books, but we know not one has sold out and GW sent the unsold stock free to stores as a promotional item.
If it was worth stocking independent stores wouldn't be cutting ties with GW completely but they are.
The financial reports is clear model sales are down 4% there is no doubt BaC sold well so if that was a success the only logical deduction is AoS did not.
There's tons of evidence AoS is doing poorly but sure bury your heads in the sand it won't change the facts.
Exactly.
Pretty much all evidence suggest that this joke of a system is a commercial failure. Some refuse to acknowledge it, but personally, I think a few of them are plants or alias.
Not to mention that the numerous polls on the major wargaming forums have shown that the large majority of WHFB players are not playing AOS
I don't think this so much at all, players don't really seem to be playing in a difernt way.
The lack of points hasn't really made the missions and more naritive driven, watching YouTube it looks almost standward. (Short of no points given)
Points can be used to great effect in naritive campaigns, I have played 2 for Warmachine and run 1 myself.
What has always been the issue with GW games has been poor rules for naritive games, which I think all age of sigmar really did was drop points..
Lack of points hasn't changed how people think so much, as force people to come up with creative solutions to play like they did before :(
Setting a standard for ease of play isn't bad, but GW isn't doing anything with its standard.
The narrative strength of AoS is in the army compositions. Point systems come with restrictions and requirements. Here are a few examples, from my armies, armies of friends, and projects.
-Bat themed VC army with fell bats, bats swarms, varghiests, terrogheists, etc.
-Skinks only Seraphon army with monsters that carries them.
-Witch cult only Dark Elves.
-Chariots only Tomb Kings (I just took the last chance opportunity to buy this army entirely from scratch. 240 euros of chariots xD)
-Savage Orcs.
-Empire Griffons. Griff-hounds, Demi-Griffs, Griffon mages, Griffon lord.
-Spirits VC. Spirits, Archais, Mortarghs, Covent Throne, etc
-Minotaurs army.
-Winged Stormcasts.
None of those would we viable in a game with points, and all of them would be crushed by net comps. In my local store, when we bring armies like this, everybody comes around the table to see how it will fair, and we build the opposing army accordingly.
Take my Chariot TK army. I haven't played with it yet (hell I haven't even took them out of the box yet), but I have no doubt it would get crushed by everything. Thankfully in my store, most people play AoS for the fun and narrative they can create, so when I'll bring it out, it will result in games of epic charges against equally interesting themed armies. Games I absolutely do not care if I win or not.
I guess points could be a good thing, alot of people in 9th said the no points was the main reason they didn't like AoS.
The problems with putting in points now would be that it might make a divide in the AoS fanbase between those who want non-point games and those who will only play with points.
I prefer using scenarios and narrative battles rather than lists but point systems like the Azyr system come in really handy with general battles. That's a comp, though. An official point system runs the risk of being abused by cheese players who take advantage of it.
I don't think this so much at all, players don't really seem to be playing in a difernt way.
The lack of points hasn't really made the missions and more naritive driven, watching YouTube it looks almost standward. (Short of no points given)
Points can be used to great effect in naritive campaigns, I have played 2 for Warmachine and run 1 myself.
What has always been the issue with GW games has been poor rules for naritive games, which I think all age of sigmar really did was drop points..
Lack of points hasn't changed how people think so much, as force people to come up with creative solutions to play like they did before :(
Setting a standard for ease of play isn't bad, but GW isn't doing anything with its standard.
The narrative strength of AoS is in the army compositions. Point systems come with restrictions and requirements. Here are a few examples, from my armies, armies of friends, and projects.
-Bat themed VC army with fell bats, bats swarms, varghiests, terrogheists, etc.
-Skinks only Seraphon army with monsters that carries them.
-Witch cult only Dark Elves.
-Chariots only Tomb Kings (I just took the last chance opportunity to buy this army entirely from scratch. 240 euros of chariots xD)
-Savage Orcs.
-Empire Griffons. Griff-hounds, Demi-Griffs, Griffon mages, Griffon lord.
-Spirits VC. Spirits, Archais, Mortarghs, Covent Throne, etc
-Minotaurs army.
-Winged Stormcasts.
None of those would we viable in a game with points, and all of them would be crushed by net comps. In my local store, when we bring armies like this, everybody comes around the table to see how it will fair, and we build the opposing army accordingly.
Take my Chariot TK army. I haven't played with it yet (hell I haven't even took them out of the box yet), but I have no doubt it would get crushed by everything. Thankfully in my store, most people play AoS for the fun and narrative they can create, so when I'll bring it out, it will result in games of epic charges against equally interesting themed armies. Games I absolutely do not care if I win or not.
Naritive doesn't mean you can take anything, and it really shouldn't at all mean that. I have a chariots themed tomb Kong army well over the 7000 points for fantasy and take many elements from tomb kings. Just because you hold to a theme it doesn't mean it's to a naritive, and often can be detriment to it.
Some of above I would class as outliers and others I ask why couldn't they be done in a points system ?
A good a robust system will allow for army's within its natural naritive, with outliers being possible with varying dificultys. With simple changes being the norm for naritive play. (W/H with no warcaster or warlock)
If GW really care about naritive there is a lot they could do, adding points isn't needed for a naritive game. But age of sigmar does really nothing for it.
In the thought to naritive, a space marine all terminator force is cool and fluffy but it shouldn't be on the open battlefield against a elder craftworld outside a custom scenario. Unless your naritive is a suicidel or incompetent commander. Points doesn't hinder this, it should re enforce the standard so the naritive you create is interesting when you deviate.
Points are not needed for age of sigmar, players shouldn't be looking for GW to add them. GW is bad at it anyway, what they should be asking for is GW to improve the game and stystems they have now. Not leave entire army's hanging for years. And actuly consider evolution to stagnation in there game.
Things GW is continuing right from 8th right into sigmar
Not to mention that the numerous polls on the major wargaming forums have shown that the large majority of WHFB players are not playing AOS
...and people who act all surprised when the candidate they and all their friends voted for didn't win...
You seemed pretty confused. In fact, since a creationist is someone that clings to his belief, despite all the evidences pointing to the contrary, you're way closer to being one than I am. Sure, the methodology of these polls is far from perfectr , but they're pretty much the best information that we have on the subject. And they all point toward AOS being a huge failure, No matter how much anguish it cause to you, and the 5 others AOS enthusiats,
Facts that fit a theory aren't the same as facts that prove a theory.
You don't like AoS, and your experience and perceptions are filtered through that.
I like AoS, so mine is the reverse.
The trick is to be able to look at things objectively.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you aren't it's by chance rather than your chain of reasoning.
For example, the recent WWAoS event had around 50 attendees. That's more than 5, right?
I would think there are fewer AoS players online because they're *gasp* enjoying it and don't need/crave the validation of other enthusiasts.
FWIW the scene is really picking up at my FLGS, but they have taken to using the Warscroll Builder site so it's not pure AoS.
I'll be taking the plunge once I decide on an army (Skaven, Skelly bobs or Orruks - that will take some getting used to!) but I want to try it without a fan made points system.
It is largely erelivent to players how well it is doing on a world wide scale, other than one of GWs big ist strengths being that you could play it no matter where you had gone.
WWAoS event could have zero and it would affect me largely the same. All that matters is wether it's enough for GW.
Off topic of corse. (I am amazed how cheep I could get stormcasts)
I do think that Age of Sigmar has the chance to be awesome, points or not. But it's still GW at the helm, they where willing to drop points with not really putting much effort into the game itself. No real thing stopping them swaying wildly in the other direction if AoS isn't doing well enough for them now.
Interestingly, I have heard a rumour that Stormcast sets that dont appear to be selling as expected (Prosecutors & Liberators) is thought to be due to the prevalence of 2nd hand sales from big-box split-downs.
Well, that's just a rumour, and also it's not really relevant to the issue of a points system.
To me, while I think the game would have been better with some kind of simple combat value indication on the war scrolls, I don't think this is necessary if you treat the game as a fast-play skirmish where you aren't all that worried about balance of the sides.
AoS clearly is not intended as a serious tournament game. It seems unlikely that GW could ever attract serious tournament players just by adding a points system.
Interestingly, I have heard a rumour that Stormcast sets that dont appear to be selling as expected (Prosecutors & Liberators) is thought to be due to the prevalence of 2nd hand sales from big-box split-downs.
To be fair, the starter set costs about the same as 2x 5-man boxes. They'd be idiots to think people wouldn't split the starter set.
monders wrote: I would think there are fewer AoS players online because they're *gasp* enjoying it and don't need/crave the validation of other enthusiasts.
FWIW the scene is really picking up at my FLGS, but they have taken to using the Warscroll Builder site so it's not pure AoS.
I'll be taking the plunge once I decide on an army (Skaven, Skelly bobs or Orruks - that will take some getting used to!) but I want to try it without a fan made points system.
The narrative strength of AoS is in the army compositions. Point systems come with restrictions and requirements. Here are a few examples, from my armies, armies of friends, and projects.
Ironically, restrictions and requirements often support the narrative element. ‘taking whatever you want’ and ‘having no restrictions’ isn’t the same as being themed.
-Bat themed VC army with fell bats, bats swarms, varghiests, terrogheists, etc.
-Skinks only Seraphon army with monsters that carries them.
-Witch cult only Dark Elves.
-Chariots only Tomb Kings (I just took the last chance opportunity to buy this army entirely from scratch. 240 euros of chariots xD)
-Savage Orcs.
-Empire Griffons. Griff-hounds, Demi-Griffs, Griffon mages, Griffon lord.
-Spirits VC. Spirits, Archais, Mortarghs, Covent Throne, etc
-Minotaurs army.
-Winged Stormcasts.
None of those would we viable in a game with points, and all of them would be crushed by net comps. In my local store, when we bring armies like this, everybody comes around the table to see how it will fair, and we build the opposing army accordingly.
Why not?
I disagree. Why wouldn’t they be viable in a points based game? Surely if they get crushed, it speaks more about poorly implemented game mechanics than anything else? The system is robust, it would be able to handle it? Don’t make the mistake of confusing ‘points based systems’ with ‘poorly designed points based system’ which is precisely what you are doing. I mean, in warmachine and infinity, I can have themed armies (all-cav armies, all jack/monster armies, magic themed armies and so on) and they perform just as well as anything else, and within the context of multi-list formats and specific formats such as blood, sweat and tiers that PP promote, they have carved out a very viable niche.
You are also confusing cause and effect. ‘points’ isn’t the reason those themed armies ‘get crushed’ by netlists or wouldnt be viable, but somehow ‘lack of points’ allow them to do well in AOS. Its ‘building the opposing army accordingly’ which does it. Amusingly, this can also be done in points-based systems.
Take my Chariot TK army. I haven't played with it yet (hell I haven't even took them out of the box yet), but I have no doubt it would get crushed by everything. Thankfully in my store, most people play AoS for the fun and narrative they can create, so when I'll bring it out, it will result in games of epic charges against equally interesting themed armies. Games I absolutely do not care if I win or not.
And when I match it against my theoretical narrative and themed ‘the apocalypse is nigh’ army of fifty bloodthirsters and other bloodnouns that I play for fun and narrative? I mean, above, you dismiss the idea of themed armies as unworkable in points based systems because they will ‘get crushed by net comps’, but when your narrative lists get crushed in non-points based systems, its something epic and you don’t care if you get crushed. Seems like double standards to me. Your argument is a bit dishonest because you are applying a shock absorber (ie ‘building the opposing army accordingly’) to your preference, and not the other, and using this as ‘proof’ that that your preferred system is somehow better and you use this to justify how lack of points allows greater variety. What this reinforces has actually got nothing to do with point-based systems being bad, or non-point based systems being good. Both are prone to the same issues. What acts as a shock absorber in both is either having it out with your opponent as to what would be a good match-up and working from there-which you can do in both AOS and points based systems- or else having other ‘shock absorbers’ in place like specific structural components built into the game that allows for, and encourages variety, eg multiple list formats in wargames which allow for dodging those hard counters that often hamper themed lists, factoring in things like multiple win conditions, having sideboards in your army rosters and so on.
which goes back to the point that it’s a gamer approach that causes the problem, not a system thing.
RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:
Was WHFB broken - and if it was - were points bad?
Yes, WHFB (and 40K) was broken, but it wasn't an inherent problem with points. Just that the studio didn't bother their arse to thrash out balanced points. Among other things...
RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:True enough, but GW is investing quite a bit into all these new releases don't you think? What is wrong with AOS? I sort of like the new unit characteristics and to hit/to wound/rend balance- in theory. Is it more than that?
The problem with WHFB and 40K is that the main aim of the games, the main method of winning, is to try to cram the best combination of unit rules and special rules into the army restrictions. I.e. listbuilding. There are some little tactical considerations, like pulling off a flank attack or deciding whether to shoot or run, but these come in a distant second to all the unique abilities you can buy. (And I mean buy. Witness the GW gamers who get hot under the collar when someone uses older models, something scratchbuilt, or even cardboard counters, as if they're cheating against the true point of the GW hobby, according to Alan Merrett)
AoS is just like that, but more so. All the restrictions and the few tactical tricks have been stripped out. The four-page main rules are so simple, generic and without nuance, that any gaming group could have whipped them up within half an hour. Now the rules are really all about the special rules. The rules are all there in the fancy, arbitrary abilities in the warscrolls, and the corresponding models you have to buy to make use of them. That's all there is. Thekingofkings' 'laundry list of bad' is so sadly predictable, just from that initial reading of AoS.
I mean, strewth, when even the scenery gets unique, must-buy warscroll rules...
Thanks to some basic facts about brain development, I'm convinced that 'memorisation of loads of stats and rules before the tabletop' vs. 'judgement and decisions with apparently simpler rules on the tabletop' is a big part of what makes WHFB/40K's game style more suited to children and teens rather than older gamers. And I'm also pretty well convinced that's why the GW fanbase took such a strop against AoS. Not only did it kill most of the few on-table opportunities to stimulate the ol' frontal lobes, but - perhaps without many being conscious of it - the all-new game forced many remaining players to take a fresh, more detached, didn't-grow-up-with-this-game look at what GW's 'special rules over structure and tactics' games design was actually like. Along with the OTT background and models, the rules are an opportunity to look at WHFB and 40K at a different angle, to see what they really are, or the direction they were/are headed.
Look upon AoS, ye Warhammer players, and despair. The biggest shock is that this is what became of WHFB sooner rather than later.
That's for most of the older players, anyway. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a stream of new kids going wild for AoS, either.
thekingofkings wrote:was rarely any fun, which the GW staffer constantly saying "now isnt this fun" and "see this is so much better than warhammer" while we were frustratedly trying to tolerate the shoddy rules didnt help.
I can imagine. That's putting some funny pictures in my head.
Not to mention that the numerous polls on the major wargaming forums have shown that the large majority of WHFB players are not playing AOS
...and people who act all surprised when the candidate they and all their friends voted for didn't win...
You seemed pretty confused. In fact, since a creationist is someone that clings to his belief, despite all the evidences pointing to the contrary, you're way closer to being one than I am. Sure, the methodology of these polls is far from perfectr , but they're pretty much the best information that we have on the subject. And they all point toward AOS being a huge failure, No matter how much anguish it cause to you, and the 5 others AOS enthusiats,
I guess the 150 people found to the SCGT tournament don't count? No reports show AoS is a huge failure and that argument is laughable. The financial report showed a slight decline in sales from the previous year, of which AoS was only present half of that period. We don't know what caused that decline 40K, WHFB or AoS. Likely, AoS is smaller currently than WHFB was, but this was a long term change and AoS is growing in many areas. You have to look at it as a completely new game and if you view it as a new 8 month old game it is very successful.
WHFB was generally regarded as a more tactically complex game than 40K, thanks to rules like flanking bonuses and psychology.
The fundamental problem was that for decades, GW promoted both WHFB and 40K as tournament level games, with various tournament circuits. But they hd constantly changing rules, and a balance system that was so crocked, that the best way to get an advantage was to find the newest and best sploits in building a list.
That's not a format of gaming I personally am interested in, but a lot of people are, and to be fair, it's not an invalid way of playing a game. At any rate, GW, wittingly or not, put a lot of time and effort into boosting it up.
Then they pulled the rug out from under. It's not surprising that these players are angry.
I still don't believe AoS will ever get a points system. I just don't see it being a game that GW want to promote as a tournament system.
I guess the 150 people found to the SCGT tournament don't count?
Compared to what? Hundreds or even thousands of previous WHFB players?
No reports show AoS is a huge failure and that argument is laughable.
Except all the gamers and store owners and financial analysts saying 'this thing is dead'.
The financial report showed a slight decline in sales from the previous year, of which AoS was only present half of that period. We don't know what caused that decline 40K, WHFB or AoS.
This has been hashed over so many times. Most of GW's sales of a product come just after it's release. If the needle doesn't even make an upwards wobble, months after GW's big, fancy, new fanfare of a game, I think we might be able to make an educated guess which product shoulders a lot of the blame.
You have to look at it as a completely new game
See my previous post. As a game, new or otherwise, it's terrible.
and if you view it as a new 8 month old game it is very successful.
Do you have any reports to back that up?
And if it is growing, will it grow quick enough for GW? They've chucked away better games for less, in their time.
I guess the 150 people found to the SCGT tournament don't count?
Compared to what? Hundreds or even thousands of previous WHFB players?
The attendance of the SCGT is a bit of a problem spot, since it's a tournament that began in 2009 with WHFB and has only switched to AoS in 2016. The current number of participants doesn't indicate AoS's popularity, just that it's piggybacking off of seven years of WHFB-fueled attendance.
If SCGT continues to break the 100+ attendance in 2017 and beyond, then we might say the game has some popularity. But how many of these are new players compared to people using their old miniatures? Will we get a breakdown of factions usage once the event is over?
and if you view it as a new 8 month old game it is very successful.
Do you have any reports to back that up?
Another problem, because we don't have any way to seperate AoS sales from Fantasy-is-going-away-panic-and-buy-everything sales and I'm-going-to-play-another-game-with-GW's-models sales.
That's not a format of gaming I personally am interested in, but a lot of people are, and to be fair, it's not an invalid way of playing a game.
Two problems, though.
- exploiting imbalanced rules through the best builds could be seen as not actually playing the game. Instead playing the metagame, to put it most charitably.
- It doesn't mean it's an especially valid way to play a game, either. You talk about the crocked system, I can't help feel the same way about the attitude. It's as if playing a game of football (soccer) in a Sunday League - or just a kickabout - is all about making sure the Man U players are on your team.
Playing the game and playing the meta game is a semantic distinction. The fact is that in competition 40K especially, game results are strongly biased by army selection. This has been clear for years.
I guess the 150 people found to the SCGT tournament don't count?
Compared to what? Hundreds or even thousands of previous WHFB players?
.
Most of whom weren't playing, or buying or going to tournaments. Aos is a 'new' game with a rather traumatic birth. For all the negativity, it does appeal to some people, and there seems to be enough of them (in some places at least) to warrant those big 'events' (I really don't think 'tournament' is an appropriate term for those game-days they are organising.
No reports show AoS is a huge failure and that argument is laughable.
Except all the gamers and store owners and financial analysts saying 'this thing is dead'.
True dat. But on the other side, there are other gamers and store owners and so on who can't keep fantasy stuff on the shelves it's moving so fast. What does this tell us? In some places it's doing well, in others not so much. Or people are panic buying the last fantasy stuff. Let's also point out that the data you point to (and I've also seen numerous posts of 'it's not selling', so don't think I am being biased here) must be qualified, rather than simply taken at face value. For example, gw do a lot of their sales via their own shops rather than independents, and there is also those (maybe the majority? Could be, you never know...) who buy online, rather than in shops. If people are not playing in stores, are they playing at home? There is a sizeable section of our community that play at home rather than in an flgs, and I think Aos might be more popular in some of those 'invisible' circles than some people give credit for. I have personal experience of thinking certain games were 'dead' and simply not played in my area (in my case, warmachine) only to, through various circumstances, to come across a sizeable, and up until then, invisible to both me and the group I played with, community of gamers in my area that were heavily involved in the game. In other words 'this game is dead' might just mean 'this game is played elsewhere'. I don't ascribe this as some kind of a universal truth that dismisses your argument (I think what you are saying does have some validity), but I dont think your argument describes the whole picture.
The financial report showed a slight decline in sales from the previous year, of which AoS was only present half of that period. We don't know what caused that decline 40K, WHFB or AoS.
This has been hashed over so many times. Most of GW's sales of a product come just after it's release. If the needle doesn't even make an upwards wobble, months after GW's big, fancy, new fanfare of a game, I think we might be able to make an educated guess which product shoulders a lot of the blame.
.
40k? I mean, most of gw's sales come from there, one would have to assume it shoulders some of the blame. The fact that gw continued down the same old road with the same trends could suggest that it's business as usual and Aos is neither a net positive or a net negative, or has a minimal impact on the bottom line. Then again, there is the other argument that battle at calth saved this years bottom line. And I think there might be some truth in there personally.
Wfb wasn't making any money (I've seen claims of them making 65p for every pound they put into wfb), but then again, wfb wasn't really accounting for much of the overall picture (space marines make and break gw). A lot of the development costs for Aos would in all likelihood be covered by the previous few years, so Aos doesn't have to do much to tread water, which is all they need. Aos has had quite a slow start, but I do think it's picking up its adherents now, and while I don't think it will ever quite expand to the levels of 'second biggest game' that wfb was for so long, I think it will attract enough to live a quiet life outside of the spotlight.
Aos certainly didn't pick up where wfb left off, and I do think that is a shame. It is definitely a game that is appealing to a demographic thst is quite different to the one that wfb appealed to, so I think all claims of success or failure when compared against the wfb demographic are a bit misleading.
See my previous post. As a game, new or otherwise, it's terrible.
Horses for courses really. Some people love it. Like, I get it, I really do. I love my complex, hundreds-of-moving-parts wargames like infinity and warmachine, and the boiled down simplicity of Aos (especially since it's just the same old thirty year old gw game mechanics, just stopped down that I've been playing all my life) really doesn't appeal to me. But those very same things that draw me those complex games make others run a mile. I've seen various anecdotes of people who see Aos as their first 'real' gateway into wargaming, since everything else on offer, and all the massive tomes of rules and everything else kept them out of the hobby. I've also seen anecdotes of wargaming parents who used Aos to get their kids into wargaming, and if I had kids, I'd probably be doing the same thing - I can imagine Aos appealing more than infinity or warmachine in terms of how it plays and how it looks. And this is not necessarily a bad thing (though I'd rather have my warjacks on the field!)
So, 'Terrible'? To you? Yes, and you're entitled to your view. To me? maybe. But if anything, I am merely 'disinterested'. To others - yeah, it might very well be something great.
and if you view it as a new 8 month old game it is very successful.
Do you have any reports to back that up?
And if it is growing, will it grow quick enough for GW? They've chucked away better games for less, in their time.
It's not yet dead? Does that count as 'very successful'? I don't think it's on life support, so I think it's probably picking up, at least a little bit, but I don't think it'll ever be a 'big' game like fantasy.
As you say though, whether it grows quickly enough will be the telling factor. In my mind, far more so than what we've seen so far. If it's not meet gw's expectations I fully expect gw to ditch fantasy entirely and focus almost entirely on 40k. I don't think it will be immediate, and it's the kind of thing you'll probably have to wait two to four years to really see. Personally? I'd imagine it as a 50/50 chance. It could do enough, even if it will never be stellar, or else it will quietly shrivel up and just go away quietly. There won't even be a bang.
I'm always surprised you don't see this post from Larry Vela from BoLS quoted more often in these threads:
bigred wrote:What we've heard from every retailer out there was a strong robust year up until AoS hit on July 4th weekend - followed by the worst 12-week summer for GW sales they had ever seen. (One retailers said is was the worst summer of GW sales in 17 years!), followed by a leveling off and slow regrowth with the arrival of Tau. Still, not back up up to the pre AoS levels.
Several retailers told us they would never treat GW the same after that summer and are strongly diversifying product lines away from them.
[...]
I'm certain GW has felt the pain of AoS behind the scenes, regardless of the public face they are putting out. Not one retailer talked about it in positive terms with us.
BoLS isn't omnipresent or anything, but I'm pretty sure it's still the biggest wargaming site out there, and Larry's got quite a network of retailers he talks to on the regular. If AoS is doing well, or even just okay, it's doing so despite quite a lot of evidence saying otherwise.
I have heard it's the fact that it was 12-weeks of no-40k that impacted the sales so severely. I think 12-weeks of pure WHFB would have been just as bad... or maybe even worse?
If GW thought AoS was going to be as popular as a big 40k release, that was a mistake on their part. Moving forward I think the measure of success is if it is more profitable than WHFB, and in that regard we do not yet have enough facts to say either way.
Everyone acts like GW going forward with 9th edition would've kept things peachy but with such a declining fantasy sales rate, high entry rate and more companies backed by 3D printers that allow better minis with cheaper costs and more tempting games, I wonder if GW had seen the current gaming shake up as the only way to keep fantasy around.
9th edition could've been just as slow a decline with the only difference would be less angry fans but who would've kept being siphoned away by other companies until warhammer fantasy went quietly into the night.
I see AoS not as GW's anwser to the decline but a way to maintain that end of the franchise without it weighing them down. It doesn't have to be a huge success, it just has to let them sell models.
Let me try restate my concern. If I am goingto play a game of Warhammer, with either a friend, my brother, or a friendly stranger at a GW or hobby store, I want both our forces to have roughly the same chance of victory. The match should be balanced. Are points in 40k perfect - no - but for the most part they do ensure that most units and vehicles, so in Sigmar special characters monsters and troops, carry a point amount that roughly translates to their power level. Each unit has their own stats and special rules. Points reflect the value of these stats in combination with the special rules. It is up to players to use them effectively for their cost.
If we are going to play a 1500 point game sure someone who really power games a list, especially with formations these days, may have tons of better special rules but for the most part either army should win. We collect armies that have troops, fast attack, heavy support and HQ - no full on "taking advantage" of the best rules and formations. By picking models to play with in our collection, we know that for 200 points we can take two Helbrutes or instead one Defiler. This gives us rough balance that we don't need to make up - and potential get wrong, or let the pushy guy who seems nice enough but really wants to get an unfair advantage try hide the value of his units. There is nothing up for discussion and while you can think some point values are off, and while I do miss some of the earlier edition rules and simplicity and unit balance/selection, I personally think most things are pretty accurate as long as they are taken in moderation.
So we don't really power game, in a casual setting , we collect the models we like and then want to play with them.
So let's say I start up a Seraphon army because I want to do a new set of Lizardmen because I like the models rather than switching to something different. How do I know if I should be deploying 30 Saurus warriors for every 25 Blood Warriors. Or does a blood warrior more accurately match a Saurus Guard. Should I be taking two skinks for the price of one Saurus or what. How many Saurus should I give up to field three kroxigor. I really like the Carnosaur model but how does it stack up to a high elf on griffon... What about a high elf on dragon. It leaves way too much to interpretation and maybe I don't "get" how AOS plays but it seems others have this issue. At least with 40k there are concrete standards that do not change.
Maybe my friend crushed me because he took tons of eldar vehicles, destroyed my AV and I took too much anti infantry - that's fine with me. I will enjoy adapting my collection with models I like and trying new tactics.
I can't imagine playing a game of 40k and saying hey guys you know what, fk points, just fully upgrade all your guys and let's field something that looks about even and play! So... How many orks to match 10 space marines?
The best way is just to eyeball it at first go, find out what worked and didn't, and go from there. If you're playing with friends, you're going to be able to figure out your own balance and how it works with scenarios pretty quickly.
I would add that the mentality to go into this game is more "what would make for the funnest game between me and my opponent?" and less "how can I maximize everything about my army and gain every advantage possible?"
RighteousnessInkhornate wrote: Let me try restate my concern. If I am goingto play a game of Warhammer, with either a friend, my brother, or a friendly stranger at a GW or hobby store, I want both our forces to have roughly the same chance of victory. The match should be balanced. Are points in 40k perfect - no - but for the most part they do ensure that most units and vehicles, so in Sigmar special characters monsters and troops, carry a point amount that roughly translates to their power level. Each unit has their own stats and special rules. Points reflect the value of these stats in combination with the special rules. It is up to players to use them effectively for their cost.
Bwahahaha. No. Just, just no. I applaud your enthusiasm but you are quite wrong here. Go and compare what you can do with eldar with what you can do with tyranids or blood Angels. Points are a useful tool, but they need to be used right. In other words, in 40k they most certainly do not work 'for the most part, and ensure most units and vehicles are balanced.
If we are going to play a 1500 point game sure someone who really power games a list, especially with formations these days, may have tons of better special rules but for the most part either army should win. We collect armies that have troops, fast attack, heavy support and HQ - no full on "taking advantage" of the best rules and formations. By picking models to play with in our collection, we know that for 200 points we can take two Helbrutes or instead one Defiler. This gives us rough balance that we don't need to make up - and potential get wrong, or let the pushy guy who seems nice enough but really wants to get an unfair advantage try hide the value of his units. There is nothing up for discussion and while you can think some point values are off, and while I do miss some of the earlier edition rules and simplicity and unit balance/selection, I personally think most things are pretty accurate as long as they are taken in moderation.
If rough balance is enough for you, then what's the matter with 'eyeballing' things, especially when you are so clearly not interested in pushing a systems to the point where it creaks and potentially falls apart?
So let's say I start up a Seraphon army because I want to do a new set of Lizardmen because I like the models rather than switching to something different. How do I know if I should be deploying 30 Saurus warriors for every 25 Blood Warriors. Or does a blood warrior more accurately match a Saurus Guard. Should I be taking two skinks for the price of one Saurus or what. How many Saurus should I give up to field three kroxigor. I really like the Carnosaur model but how does it stack up to a high elf on griffon... What about a high elf on dragon. It leaves way too much to interpretation and maybe I don't "get" how AOS plays but it seems others have this issue. At least with 40k there are concrete standards that do not change.
Then play them and find out. It's called 'playtesting'. If it's obviously skewed, then change the rosters or add to one side or the other. Or else you balance the scenario around skewed armies to ensure fairness (bigger army needs to kill more stuff or hold more ground for example). And take it from there. You don't figure out wargames first go in any other Wargame out there, and not using points as a baseline really is no different.
The idea is thst you co-operate in building the scenario and the opposing armies so that they look like they're going to be roughly equal. The more you do it, the easier it becomes as you'll know roughly what every unit is capable of.
And I don't mean to be cheeky here, but it's quite often that the points costs assigned to various units in 40k have absolutely no bearing on their actual effectiveness.
Maybe my friend crushed me because he took tons of eldar vehicles, destroyed my AV and I took too much anti infantry - that's fine with me. I will enjoy adapting my collection with models I like and trying new tactics.
And the reason you can't do this in a system that doesn't base itself on points is because???
I can't imagine playing a game of 40k and saying hey guys you know what, fk points, just fully upgrade all your guys and let's field something that looks about even and play! So... How many orks to match 10 space marines?
Then that's on you. Imagine harder. It's a perception shift, nothing more. But you should know that wargaming pretty much started without points, and probably up until the 80s this was the norm. Quite a few historical games still don't use points and army match ups are based primarily in the narrative, or story behind the battle being played.
For what it's worth, we play a lot of our games and simply ignore points. Usually in flames of war. I actually couldn't tell you the points codes of anything in that game. We stick down what we think would make an interesting scenario and take it from there. And generally, we've gotten pretty good at matching our forces against each other.
bleak wrote: If you want to play points there are a couple out there fanmade sites such as scrollbuilder.com that let's you set some points as a gauge, which I use loosely as I often use a couple of points lower than my opponents and more often than not have an equal fight or even gaining an upper hand sometimes. You'll also realise how different fan made points are different although its the same unit, which proves that there is no particular fairness in pointage systems. In one area, a unit could be strong but bring it to a different area with different meta, you get a different result. Still I would agree points is a quite way to find 'balance' quickly.
thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.
There are literally dozens of games that would recreate that fight far better than AoS could, mostly because there was nothing inherently "fantasy" about that battle. Brienne and Ramsay had different objectives entiretly, Ramsay won a decisive victory as Stannis and his army were effectively destroyed. Stannis living or dying was of no matter at the point his force was destroyed. While it would seem a no brainer that such a cavalry force would easily win, had the ground been icier or less forgiving or had Stannis withdrew quicker and in better order to the treeline (the show had half his army rout before contact) it could have been a more closely fought affair. It would have been done far better by a "historical game" and having played these scenarios ad nauseam, they usually result in middle mosh pits,. the nature of movement and combat in AoS almost ensures it, without discipline on players parts, its inevitable. points arent necessarily the answer, something with the warscrolls themselves seems to me the way to go. that even so many folks who enjoy AoS seem compelled to create comps or points, even GW itself has done limiting for running its own game, that is design flaw, not a good thing. As for the freedom to build armies, AoS suffers the same as warhammer in that regard, there simply are useless units and units that are clearly superior. after about our 30th game, it was blatantly obvious that this was the case. I am also not saying this game is beyond redemption, but it is certainly not very good in its current incarnation, Believe that this is not "the final product" any more than any other GW mainline game, there will be a 2nd, 3rd, etc edition of this game. GW has never "gotten it right" straight out of the gate with anything, this is no different. I think what would have helped it more, delay release by several months, put ALOT more effort into finding some balancing mechanism, completely divorce the old world and old characters. insist on 1 base type and make it the standard of measurement, then produce the game as it is with its new factions and new concepts. as it stands now its a string along with people wondering "is my army next" to be deleted. I have brettonia, tomb kings, wood elves and high elves. so while with these "1.0" warscrolls I can still play, but as my armies get deleted or mangled and discontinued the power creep will continue until either i get a new AoS army or just drop the game. had the rules been better written and less nonsensical, buying a new army would have been a good idea, fluff wise its whatever folks like, personally I the fluff the most. doing a complete 180 from its previous incarnation essentially without warning would have been mitigated by just making this a new game. What they produced now will mostly appeal to a smaller group, as I have said before I think this game is more popular in europe than here. In my state GW is already a non factor and i hold little hope our local GW will last. but thats not AoS thats just poor location, poor customer service, tiny shop etc...
I see, dozen of games that would, but I have honestly never seen any games like it before though, whereas it can easily be replicated as "The trap" Battleplan in one of the AoS books. And also, sure, Ramsey won the victory, but he didn't get to Stannis. From your perspective, its all about competitive gaming. One force wiping out the other, which makes you lose sight of what AoS is about, which makes you not understand why things are being done one way or another. From AoS gamer's perspective, it is an epic game, which sure, Ramsey won, but only a minor, as a third party was the one who dealt the killing blow. Or heck, we don't even know Stannis' fate who could make a return somehow to change the narrative of the game. Sure other game systems could do it, and may do it better. But what is the point when you have to house rule those games as well? And more importantly, if you can't find a game, then it defeats the purpose of having that game in the first place right? For AoS, I could just ask someone if they want to play a game like that and its mostly yes.
You are misrepresenting and incorrect about my perspectives. what I said in regards to AGoT, my explanation of the results has nothing to do with cometitive gaming nor is my perspective about it. In the shows version of events which may or may not be the books intent all they needed to do was remove Stannis as a contender, killing him was not necessary, hell even destroying his army completely wasnt necessary, just breaking it, and hence removing him from contention. . as for reenacting that battle, it is a historical style battle that AoS simply could not do, sure you could try 2 brettonian armies, but you would still miss what was happening. an army of stormcast doing something similar in manuever to say skaven or what have you is a poor copy of the Bolton cavalry force moving in on an essentially Baratheon infantry force, which originally was cavalry. for finding a game, thats local, here, you wont find an AoS game unless you are extremely lucky whereas you could get a historics game with little to no effort in any of the FLGS. as for compettitve, all wargames are competitive, you are each trying to win based on your objective. AoS is competitive.
And by stating that you are misrepresenting AoS as a whole. You talk about how it cannot be done with AoS and can be done by other systems and yet you don't produce any example that could do the exact same thing that allows both side to play a fun and balanced narrative game. In AoS, one side may overpower the other side in terms of raw power and could wipe it out, and yet, that doesn't mean they secure victory. I was using AGoT as an example of it and you missed it completely, so I guess I have to apologise for that. I'm just saying points are just to make things seem fair when they really aren't and there is no fairness in battles. And objectives are there to make things interesting and 'fair' to both sides, using Stannis' last battle as an example. Even in the main 4 pages rulebook, the battle could go as shown with Stannis having lesser troops and thus having his sudden death victory score which is to endure, and he did heroically. Therefore, in game terms for AoS, the player using his army actually won. It does not represent what have happened in the show for sure since his army is wiped out and is no longer contending for the throne, but AoS is high fantasy where a hero that is not dead can rally armies up again, or heck, just have the hero try to escape being chased and play on from there. There are battleplans in the books which allow this kind of games to be played which I can say more than any other systems out there being played right now.
you didnt ask for example games, simply assumed you werent interested in historics, but "Revenge" is likely the system that would do it best, it is similar tech and culturally to what martin wrote. as for misrepresenting AoS, I dont believe so. trying to play AoS with more than 200 models per side is pure misery, takes forever and combat is a jumbled mess. getting wiped out is pretty safe bet to say you lost.
RighteousnessInkhornate wrote: Let me try restate my concern. If I am goingto play a game of Warhammer, with either a friend, my brother, or a friendly stranger at a GW or hobby store, I want both our forces to have roughly the same chance of victory. The match should be balanced. Are points in 40k perfect - no - but for the most part they do ensure that most units and vehicles, so in Sigmar special characters monsters and troops, carry a point amount that roughly translates to their power level. Each unit has their own stats and special rules. Points reflect the value of these stats in combination with the special rules. It is up to players to use them effectively for their cost.
If we are going to play a 1500 point game sure someone who really power games a list, especially with formations these days, may have tons of better special rules but for the most part either army should win. We collect armies that have troops, fast attack, heavy support and HQ - no full on "taking advantage" of the best rules and formations. By picking models to play with in our collection, we know that for 200 points we can take two Helbrutes or instead one Defiler. This gives us rough balance that we don't need to make up - and potential get wrong, or let the pushy guy who seems nice enough but really wants to get an unfair advantage try hide the value of his units. There is nothing up for discussion and while you can think some point values are off, and while I do miss some of the earlier edition rules and simplicity and unit balance/selection, I personally think most things are pretty accurate as long as they are taken in moderation.
So we don't really power game, in a casual setting , we collect the models we like and then want to play with them.
So let's say I start up a Seraphon army because I want to do a new set of Lizardmen because I like the models rather than switching to something different. How do I know if I should be deploying 30 Saurus warriors for every 25 Blood Warriors. Or does a blood warrior more accurately match a Saurus Guard. Should I be taking two skinks for the price of one Saurus or what. How many Saurus should I give up to field three kroxigor. I really like the Carnosaur model but how does it stack up to a high elf on griffon... What about a high elf on dragon. It leaves way too much to interpretation and maybe I don't "get" how AOS plays but it seems others have this issue. At least with 40k there are concrete standards that do not change.
Maybe my friend crushed me because he took tons of eldar vehicles, destroyed my AV and I took too much anti infantry - that's fine with me. I will enjoy adapting my collection with models I like and trying new tactics.
I can't imagine playing a game of 40k and saying hey guys you know what, fk points, just fully upgrade all your guys and let's field something that looks about even and play! So... How many orks to match 10 space marines?
I hear your fears! Do you play in a local GW? If not, I recommend www.scrollbuilder.com !! Should fill your need quite nicely. I enjoy playing AoS both with and without points. Adding points really gives me the chance to crunch numbers and lost build between battles. I like SDK out of the 3 options given. If you have the models, give it a try! :-)
I don't think this so much at all, players don't really seem to be playing in a difernt way.
The lack of points hasn't really made the missions and more naritive driven, watching YouTube it looks almost standward. (Short of no points given)
Points can be used to great effect in naritive campaigns, I have played 2 for Warmachine and run 1 myself.
What has always been the issue with GW games has been poor rules for naritive games, which I think all age of sigmar really did was drop points..
Lack of points hasn't changed how people think so much, as force people to come up with creative solutions to play like they did before :(
Setting a standard for ease of play isn't bad, but GW isn't doing anything with its standard.
The narrative strength of AoS is in the army compositions. Point systems come with restrictions and requirements. Here are a few examples, from my armies, armies of friends, and projects.
-Bat themed VC army with fell bats, bats swarms, varghiests, terrogheists, etc.
-Skinks only Seraphon army with monsters that carries them.
-Witch cult only Dark Elves.
-Chariots only Tomb Kings (I just took the last chance opportunity to buy this army entirely from scratch. 240 euros of chariots xD)
-Savage Orcs.
-Empire Griffons. Griff-hounds, Demi-Griffs, Griffon mages, Griffon lord.
-Spirits VC. Spirits, Archais, Mortarghs, Covent Throne, etc
-Minotaurs army.
-Winged Stormcasts.
None of those would we viable in a game with points, and all of them would be crushed by net comps. In my local store, when we bring armies like this, everybody comes around the table to see how it will fair, and we build the opposing army accordingly.
Take my Chariot TK army. I haven't played with it yet (hell I haven't even took them out of the box yet), but I have no doubt it would get crushed by everything. Thankfully in my store, most people play AoS for the fun and narrative they can create, so when I'll bring it out, it will result in games of epic charges against equally interesting themed armies. Games I absolutely do not care if I win or not.
Watch out for the trap I fell into, despite "bases dont matter" they do, I brought 40 chariots led by settra, we got absolutely stomped into the ground by the Corn bloodmonkeys,. the sheer size of the chariots and their relative fragility caused bottlenecks ( using the RoB from GW, those moulded hills caused a " Kill pocket") IT is tempting to try to keep the distance and shoot, but I recommed going right for the throat, or bringing some horse archers to back up with mobile fire. If you are really looking for epic charges though, the skeleton horsemen are the best in the army at that, especially if you bring about 60 of em.
I will give the player made point systems a look when I have time - and unfortunately the direct above post seems maybe too true. Never mind the "pay to win" factor that seems to have crept into the games that wasn't quite there despite the hobbies significant cost before. Again I have just recently returned and each match I played seemed pretty good for points.
I appreciate you directly responding to some of my concerns. I am going to reply without quote blocks as they annoy me. Sure eldar and Tau can do some lame things but I still think they can be beaten using the right tactics and, as is important for both players, luck at the right times.
I don't mind if balance is a bit flawed - as long as it is consistent . Upgrading to a combi melta is going to cost me the exact same every game. I will know I can honestly, within the system, use those points elsewhere for a better chance to win if I think it is possible. There is a concrete balancing mechanism that while perhaps not perfect is exactly the same from opponent to opponent and game to game. I don't understand how a strategy game can exist without this. I could easily say one Defiler Seems equal to three Helbrutes. Point crafting within my own forces is something I enjoy. I'm all for some sort of unbound, unbalanced competition - where it belongs, not in a tabletop game.
I don't have time to play test as well as play. Usually I work 60 hour weeks. Sometimes I only do 40-50 and then I can spend time exercising. Some weekends I just like to paint and model, sometimes I spend a few hours playing. That is besides doing other things.
Overall I feel the entire game is being simplified and the lack of points ties directly into this. You had to think to figure out some good unit combinations and the right way to upgrade your guys wisely before. Now everything is the same, it's force fed to you, and people run very similar forces and formations. Sure formations are cool but I sort of miss the old way and complexity, having zero points just takes that to the extreme.
If I win a crushing victory with my self balanced Khorne 40k army, as I did in some tournaments back over ten years ago (granted they were only 1k point games) should I be handicapping myself or should my opponent be rethinking their strategy ?
The simplification part is where I think I have the biggest issue, the game while "simplified" to 4 pages, is not simple. the warscrolls wording compared to the core rules wordings mixed with " just decide between yourselves" concept is horrible, I like personally being able to play with complete strangers at a game store if able, this game is just awful for that, way too much time is wasted before armies ever hit the table, and it is a big deal with our GW having 2 tiny tables and everyone trying to get a game of 40k in, ( before anyone says "go play at another store" I will point out our GW is the only store in town that lets you play AoS, its banned everywhere else ((though to be fair, most of them ban ALL GW)) mix that with a store owner who couldn't be bothered to read and comprehend those 4 pages being a pest and giving flagrantly wrong info, makes it a mess. seriously you can keep the "no points" just make your ruleset clear and concise. balance can come later if the rest makes sense.
Watch out for the trap I fell into, despite "bases dont matter" they do, I brought 40 chariots led by settra, we got absolutely stomped into the ground by the Corn bloodmonkeys,. the sheer size of the chariots and their relative fragility caused bottlenecks ( using the RoB from GW, those moulded hills caused a " Kill pocket") IT is tempting to try to keep the distance and shoot, but I recommed going right for the throat, or bringing some horse archers to back up with mobile fire. If you are really looking for epic charges though, the skeleton horsemen are the best in the army at that, especially if you bring about 60 of em.
Disclaimer, I thought I'd never have a conversation with you considering your position on AoS but I'm glad we can have one about this!
So, noted. I haven't got them out of the box yet and neither I have bought the bases. Which one did you use? I wanted horsemen aswell but in the end I just got the minis to make the Royal Legion of Chariots warscroll formation plus Settra. I can't wait to assemble it all.
Watch out for the trap I fell into, despite "bases dont matter" they do, I brought 40 chariots led by settra, we got absolutely stomped into the ground by the Corn bloodmonkeys,. the sheer size of the chariots and their relative fragility caused bottlenecks ( using the RoB from GW, those moulded hills caused a " Kill pocket") IT is tempting to try to keep the distance and shoot, but I recommed going right for the throat, or bringing some horse archers to back up with mobile fire. If you are really looking for epic charges though, the skeleton horsemen are the best in the army at that, especially if you bring about 60 of em.
Disclaimer, I thought I'd never have a conversation with you considering your position on AoS but I'm glad we can have one about this!
So, noted. I haven't got them out of the box yet and neither I have bought the bases. Which one did you use? I wanted horsemen aswell but in the end I just got the minis to make the Royal Legion of Chariots warscroll formation plus Settra. I can't wait to assemble it all.
my bases are half and half, so that added some of a "mess" when trying to pin the little ______ in combat, this was one of my very earlier fights before we started using just battallion boxes for a while ( which IMO are the balanced forces, them and the "starter forces from IOB and BFSP) the first battle with the Corn bloodmonkeys was pure chariotry, it went....poorly. again the size of the models worked against me, the second time was only 15 chariots, but 30 horse archers and 20 horsemen ( in hindsight I should have used more horsemen and fewer archers) that battle actually used not a AoS scenario, but one from "a shadow in the east" called "Strange Circumstances" it went better, but the speed of the horses can get you caught off guard as the chariots cant keep up. they do hit alot harder, but for capturing objectives the horsemen are the best that army has to offer, holding the objective is an entirely different matter., the horse archers are good at being a pain in the ---- but they have to have room to manuever. that fight was also a defeat, but more to dice than actually being outfought, Corn is more intense infantry so fairly easy to dance around, but if they catch the TK, they are toast, and thats what happened, the Realm of battle board tends to put alot of bottlenecks which are death sentences to fast armies.if you are seriously going to build into tomb kings grab horsemen while you can, I havent seen the legions formation, back then we just had the downloads and the GW staffer would not allow me to use settra to be the king in the formation, I had no other chariot mounted king ( warsphinx was always my mount of choice) I am not sure if adding a mounted heirophant would help or not) the 2" difference in movement can quickly outpace, especially with the archers ability "like the desert wind" .. I commanded the tomb kings in both of those fights.
RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:I will give the player made point systems a look when I have time - and unfortunately the direct above post seems maybe too true. Never mind the "pay to win" factor that seems to have crept into the games that wasn't quite there despite the hobbies significant cost before. Again I have just recently returned and each match I played seemed pretty good for points.
Rubbish. 'Pay to win' is not something new thst has crept in, it's something thst has always been there.
Regarding each match you played bring balanced, bear in mind you have admitted you play very casually and essentially do not push the system to any level where it falls apart. This will happen the second you take decurion against blood Angels, or whatever
RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:
I appreciate you directly responding to some of my concerns. I am going to reply without quote blocks as they annoy me. Sure eldar and Tau can do some lame things but I still think they can be beaten using the right tactics and, as is important for both players, luck at the right times.
Thry can be beaten by other similar power builds thst play at the same level, but that list is small. And there are quite a few faction for whom any game in an uphill struggle under the best conditions, regardless of you having the tactical nouse of the likes of sun Tzu.
RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:I
I don't mind if balance is a bit flawed - as long as it is consistent . Upgrading to a combi melta is going to cost me the exact same every game. I will know I can honestly, within the system, use those points elsewhere for a better chance to win if I think it is possible. There is a concrete balancing mechanism that while perhaps not perfect is exactly the same from opponent to opponent and game to game. I don't understand how a strategy game can exist without this. I could easily say one Defiler Seems equal to three Helbrutes. Point crafting within my own forces is something I enjoy. I'm all for some sort of unbound, unbalanced competition - where it belongs, not in a tabletop game.
And what happens when gw prices defilers at half the cost that thry are actually worth, and makes hell brutes cost three times what they should? Both of which frequently happen in gw games. Let's be clear, I support the use of points, when they are used right, but within the gw 'ecosystem' using them as a metric of balance is an exercise in futility, and you might as well just not bother with the points and just eyeball it half the time.
If you don't understand it, you should try it. Speak to some historical players and see how thry play their games. You'd probably be surprised that the approach can work and can be quite enjoyable. Like I said, plenty historical games don't bother with points, and historically speaking, 'pointless' games was how wargaming originally began. Saying it doesn't belong in a table top gsme is a bit short sighted. It just sounds like you are so immersed in 'one way' of playing wargames, and thinking this is all they can be about, thst you can't see beyond the walls you've built up.
RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:I
I don't have time to play test as well as play. Usually I work 60 hour weeks. Sometimes I only do 40-50 and then I can spend time exercising. Some weekends I just like to paint and model, sometimes I spend a few hours playing. That is besides doing other things.
I can understand this, all too easily. When I play games without points with my mates it's usually after work on a Friday. Both have 12 by 6 boards in their garages and we often play our games over a couple of weekends. I often find the diy/home brew games often take time, a bit of organisation and a like minded approach to the game. Time constraints are not its friends. It's not necessarily good for a 'pick up and play' approach, (but then again, it doesn't need to be, since other games fill that role) and for me at least, games like warmachine are vastly superior for the ease of 'just getting on with it'.
RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:
Overall I feel the entire game is being simplified and the lack of points ties directly into this. You had to think to figure out some good unit combinations and the right way to upgrade your guys wisely before. Now everything is the same, it's force fed to you, and people run very similar forces and formations. Sure formations are cool but I sort of miss the old way and complexity, having zero points just takes that to the extreme.
What 40k were you playing? 40k has always boiled down to a bare handful of lists (third was either rhino rush, or shoot the rhino rush, fourth was 6man las/plas and skimmer spam, fifth was tankhammer, sixth evolved into spam flyers, and so on) in every edition every codex boiled down to a bare handful of ways to play. A lot,of the time, you could call 75% of a players list just by him saying 'I play faction x'.
If anything though, zero points doesn't take it to the extreme, it does the opposite. What it does is put the emphasis on the players in terms of 'how' thry are going to play. It requires a like minded approach, a bit of consideration, a co-operative mindset to build a fair match up (rather than the codex says its legal, therefore I will play it with no qualms, tough monkeys thst you can't face sixty scatter laser bikers and my wraith knights with your marines). You can still build your good combinations and you can still build your interesting themed lists (just as easily as points based games). It's just now, you don't get any bonus for abusing the system (and I refer to 40k here, not points in general).
RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:
If I win a crushing victory with my self balanced Khorne 40k army, as I did in some tournaments back over ten years ago (granted they were only 1k point games) should I be handicapping myself or should my opponent be rethinking their strategy ?
Both?
Depends on what you want out of it really. Did you win because you played better, or because he had a lousy list, or an outdated codex? Was yours one of the power codices of the time? Thst might colour your win a bit, eh? I remember playing tournaments back in fourth against iron warriors, and there really was very little I could do against it due to how shockingly overpowered thst codex was. Rethinking your strategy would mean 'buy iron warriors'. Same Is true for folks in third, fifth, sixth and the current edition.
Points were introduced in historicals for the purpose of running fair tournaments. They are backed up by army lists, so players don't have too much flexibility in choice of troop types.
Other historical games usually take known orders of battle, or use die roll tables to generate armies that reflect the original historical make-up.
DBA gives you a standard size army, 12 units plus a camp, but it's not designed as an accurate simulation.
I started in historicals. Typically a game master set up the forces. When you allow people to cherry pick units thats when the issues arose. There were many a heated argument in our historicals camp over people not taking historically accurate armies and instead going for all elite armies that never would have existed, because game theory states that if given the choice between a normal ordinary unit and an elite unit, a human will choose the elite unit vastly more than not.
Points are a good way of balancing. GW-Points have never been good at balancing, thats why the ridiculous "meta" exists and has existed for decades, and if you aren't following the "meta" you are going to have a hard time enjoying your games unless getting curb stomped doesn't bother you.
There are lots of ways to set up historical battles. A GM is one. Points are pretty popular especially for tournament rules but they always come with restrictive army lists, to avoid the min-max problem you noted.
Other systems are to use pre-determined tables to roll up a realistic army, or to use an original OrBat.
I cannot believe that even after all that time, there are STILL people who keep beating the "points systems don't allow for casual no-points" fallacy and claim that not having a points system is a change that allows for more freedom.
Just...seriously, someone, please, tell me how this is a thing after...what? Half a year? It has been the most stupid argument since the very beginning - it's downright wrong.
Everyone claiming that you now have more freedom with the "ability" to eyeball armies is just wrong. Hands down, period, no discussion. You're wrong. If you think that a points system doesn't allow for eyeballing, then you are the problem, not the system.
A good points system is vastly superior to any non-points system in all regards. It allows for /exactly/ the same things and then some. A bad points system is the same as eye-balling, but even a bad points system is better than just eyeballing as it allows even people with little to no experience to come up with a relatively balanced army and once they do gather experience, they can just make amendments on their own to balance the game out. Ye know, like competitive play has been doing for DECADES.
It's amazing how fanboyism can blind any rational thought. The horse is dead, people. Accept it.
Kilkrazy wrote: There are lots of ways to set up historical battles. A GM is one. Points are pretty popular especially for tournament rules but they always come with restrictive army lists, to avoid the min-max problem you noted.
Other systems are to use pre-determined tables to roll up a realistic army, or to use an original OrBat.
Plus historicals are much easier to eyeball because you're dealing with humans and the laws of physics. One block if elite infantry is largely the same as another block of elite infantry. You don't need to worry about things like magic buffs or vastly differening equipment or toughness.
Indeed, it's fine to say that it's your belief that points are the only way to play but you really shouldn't judge everyone else with different opinions as blind fanboys.
to be fair, we are all fanboys/girls in some way or another or we wouldn't be on a forum talking about little plastic men, but yeah, if the argument was over, then AoS would not have come out and there are quite a few games in historicals that never used points.
Sigvatr wrote: I cannot believe that even after all that time, there are STILL people who keep beating the "points systems don't allow for casual no-points" fallacy and claim that not having a points system is a change that allows for more freedom.
Just...seriously, someone, please, tell me how this is a thing after...what? Half a year? It has been the most stupid argument since the very beginning - it's downright wrong.
Everyone claiming that you now have more freedom with the "ability" to eyeball armies is just wrong. Hands down, period, no discussion. You're wrong. If you think that a points system doesn't allow for eyeballing, then you are the problem, not the system.
A good points system is vastly superior to any non-points system in all regards. It allows for /exactly/ the same things and then some. A bad points system is the same as eye-balling, but even a bad points system is better than just eyeballing as it allows even people with little to no experience to come up with a relatively balanced army and once they do gather experience, they can just make amendments on their own to balance the game out. Ye know, like competitive play has been doing for DECADES.
It's amazing how fanboyism can blind any rational thought. The horse is dead, people. Accept it.
Plus historicals are much easier to eyeball because you're dealing with humans and the laws of physics. One block if elite infantry is largely the same as another block of elite infantry. You don't need to worry about things like magic buffs or vastly differening equipment or toughness.
My thoughts exactly. I've played both point games and non point games, and eyeballing it this way always worked out better for my personal enjoyment.
As regards humans and the laws of physics, in any game units obey the laws of the rules.
One block of elite infantry is largely the same as another block of elite infantry because the rules define them as fairly equal units, elite and infantry having meanings that are defined by the rules. This is easy to relate to actual historical fact because historical rules try to emulate the real world.
However in SF/fantasy, the second elite infantry unit might have a rule that makes them invisible in certain conditions, and let's them move twice as fast when invisible. You can't easily eyeball the effect of these rules from their appearance or stats, without working through the chain of logic and algorithms that governs the unit's combat performance.
All the more reason, therefore, why a fantasy game needs some kind of way of judging the relative strength of units.
I disagree. It doesn't take a lot of work to compare Phoenix Guards and Black Guard of Naggarond. Or Dryads and Witch Elves. Wrathmongers and Retributors.
I totally understand if some people don't want to go through it. I love looking at unit stats and rules, and I like eyeballing balance way better than min maxing points.
Haechi wrote: I disagree. It doesn't take a lot of work to compare Phoenix Guards and Black Guard of Naggarond. Or Dryads and Witch Elves. Wrathmongers and Retributors.
I totally understand if some people don't want to go through it. I love looking at unit stats and rules, and I like eyeballing balance way better than min maxing points.
It takes a complete understanding of all of the special rules and synergies associated with each unit, so either a huge amount of mathhammer, or playtesting. Work that GW could have done for us and distilled into some sort of...err...points system.
Plucking 2 random examples from the GW site. How do Vulkite Berzkers compare to Vargheists?
It might seem easy to you, if you're an AoS veteran with lots of games under your belt, but what if you're not, and have never played before (therefore a balanced start is more important).
How about an example using Warmachine, so you lose the familiarity of AoS which makes the decision seem much easier. How do Iron Fang Uhlans (Khador) compare to Bane Knights (Cryx)?
Without understanding the game (where new players most affected by lack of balance are), it's almost impossible to guage balance by eyeballing it. The same applies to historics; it's just easier because we know about history, and the units are much more constrained.
Baron Klatz wrote: Indeed, it's fine to say that it's your belief that points are the only way to play but you really shouldn't judge everyone else with different opinions as blind fanboys.
I'm not sure anyone is saying that. As far as I can tell, the pro-points people are saying you can do both, but points help get started with balance. The non-points people seem to be saying that the only way to play any game is without points.
If they've only played GW games, I can almost see where they are coming from. They are wrong, but I can understand it.
Baron Klatz wrote: Indeed, it's fine to say that it's your belief that points are the only way to play but you really shouldn't judge everyone else with different opinions as blind fanboys.
I'm not sure anyone is saying that. As far as I can tell, the pro-points people are saying you can do both, but points help get started with balance. The non-points people seem to be saying that the only way to play any game is without points.
Little bit of spin there.
For a lot of people, AoS is their first experience of a game that doesn't use points or similar as a balancing mechanic.
I haven't seen any of the 'non-points people' stating it is not possible to play a game if you use points; they are mostly stating that it's not impossible to play a game without and then getting over excited when people say it is.
The tone for some of the 'pro points' people is that it should be down to the player to decide if they want points or not, which kinda renders the whole point of a game not using points moot.
Herzlos wrote: It might seem easy to you, if you're an AoS veteran with lots of games under your belt, but what if you're not, and have never played before (therefore a balanced start is more important).
You are aware that AoS is less than a year old, right? So everyone currently playing AoS has had exactly these problems within the last year, and has had it through every release since, and made it through their first game.
And, for the most part, these people already had large armies of some type so they didn't have the yard stick of starter set or battalion boxes as a rough starting point.
Yet there are a large number of people who seem to get it.
Yes, it is possible to gauge balance on paper, but you only find out if you got it right or wrong once you actually play.
I don't know a vast amount about warmachine, but even when I was regularly-ish playing I had people telling me to never bother with Jack X or unit Y because they weren't 'worth the points'. Which bummed me out, because it always seemed to be the stuff I thought looked/sounded cool.
Little bit of spin there.
For a lot of people, AoS is their first experience of a game that doesn't use points or similar as a balancing mechanic.
I haven't seen any of the 'non-points people' stating it is not possible to play a game if you use points; they are mostly stating that it's not impossible to play a game without and then getting over excited when people say it is.
The tone for some of the 'pro points' people is that it should be down to the player to decide if they want points or not, which kinda renders the whole point of a game not using points moot.
I can't think of any pro-AoS argument on points that wasn't along the lines of "removing points gives the freedom to do what I want" or "points were broken anyway".
I get that it's liberating and refreshing to go pointless, but the undertone here has been that anyone who wanted points is playing it wrong, or a power gamer "that guy", rather than accepting that some people want points and that you can just ignore the points.
You are aware that AoS is less than a year old, right? So everyone currently playing AoS has had exactly these problems within the last year, and has had it through every release since, and made it through their first game.
And, for the most part, these people already had large armies of some type so they didn't have the yard stick of starter set or battalion boxes as a rough starting point.
Yet there are a large number of people who seem to get it.
There have been people saying they've played 100+ games of AoS now, some that have just said they play at least weekly (so at least 30 games). I think it's fair to say that some people have played AoS enough now to get a chance of eyeballing balance, but that's largely my point; an awful lot of people haven't.
Yes, it is possible to gauge balance on paper, but you only find out if you got it right or wrong once you actually play.
I don't know a vast amount about warmachine, but even when I was regularly-ish playing I had people telling me to never bother with Jack X or unit Y because they weren't 'worth the points'. Which bummed me out, because it always seemed to be the stuff I thought looked/sounded cool.
Some things won't be worth the points, but that's an issue with the points values for that game, and not with points in general. I'd also imagine that in some cases the unit is worth the points because of some reason. In any case, points at least give you a reference point from which to start eyeballing. I'd have no chance of setting up a balanced game in Warmachine without referring to points. I could probably do so in AoS because I've got 20 years of on-and-off familiarity with the WHFB universe to have some idea (and I think this is part of the cause of the bias here). Whilst AoS is different, the mechanics are largely simplified from WHFB, but the units presumably work in a similar way. Dwarf Longbeards are still going to be stubborn veterans and so on.
Plucking 2 random examples from the GW site. How do Vulkite Berzkers compare to Vargheists?
It might seem easy to you, if you're an AoS veteran with lots of games under your belt, but what if you're not, and have never played before (therefore a balanced start is more important).
How about an example using Warmachine, so you lose the familiarity of AoS which makes the decision seem much easier. How do Iron Fang Uhlans (Khador) compare to Bane Knights (Cryx)?
Without understanding the game (where new players most affected by lack of balance are), it's almost impossible to guage balance by eyeballing it. The same applies to historics; it's just easier because we know about history, and the units are much more constrained.
- Imagining this is part of two armies and not just two units I'd say you need around 15 Berzerkers to match 3 Vargheist. But most importantly, once we've settle for this amount, neither me or my opponent would be mad if the fight went either way.
- I started as a beginner, and balance didn't matter either. My very first game was a demo game. I took the Bloodbounds and got my ass handed to me. I immediately recognized what I did wrong, and what to do differently for the next game. I had a blast. My first home game was Stormcasts vs Dark Elves, with roughly the same amount of models, wounds, and heroes. The Stormcasts got utterly destroyed and we had fun nonetheless. We adjusted and played some more. I don't understand the recurring argument of anti AoS people where if you get destroyed in your initiation game you will never want to play again. Why? Have you never lost at anything before? Especially something you played for the first time?
- I've never played Warmachine, but I'm pretty sure after reading the rules and looking at their stats I can figure out. Here we're talking about a game where the rules are on 4 pages and all the unit stats are available for free to anyone.
- If you don't understand the game yet, maybe the focus should be put on understanding it rather than finding a good balance no? Where new players are most affected by balance? The first Wh40k games I ever played had no balance whatsoever. I had 10 space marines and I rolled some dice against whatever was there. If those are truly new players we're talking about, then no, they won't give a gak about balance. Only experienced players care about that.
I can't think of any pro-AoS argument on points that wasn't along the lines of "removing points gives the freedom to do what I want" or "points were broken anyway".
I get that it's liberating and refreshing to go pointless, but the undertone here has been that anyone who wanted points is playing it wrong, or a power gamer "that guy", rather than accepting that some people want points and that you can just ignore the points.
Because there's no arguments to have. It's pro-points people who try to demonstrate post after post how and why a point system is superior. I'm having fun without points and I don't need them.
Because there's no arguments to have. It's pro-points people who try to demonstrate post after post how and why a point system is superior. I'm having fun without points and I don't need them.
A points system /is/ superior. This isn't up to debate. It is objectively better because a points system allows for both points and non-points games, thus pleasing more than one audience. Whether you, personally, like it or not is another matter, but objectively, having a points system is better than not having one. The sole reason for AoS not having one is a huge amount of reduced work / effort by GW in order to save time / money.
I can't think of any pro-AoS argument on points that wasn't along the lines of "removing points gives the freedom to do what I want" or "points were broken anyway".
That's a little different to what you originally claimed
Herzlos wrote: The non-points people seem to be saying that the only way to play any game is without points.
Whether a game does or does not have a composition mechanic, you still need to play it to get a feel for that composition.
It's this ongoing assessment of balance that results in local metas and discussions about units being under/evenly/over powered; if composition mechanics were 'perfect' people would never have to sacrifice aesthetic for efficiency and net listing wouldn't be of any value.
With points or a balancing mechanic, this just means that some units normally never get to see the battlefield, because the points value of the game and units doesn't change.
I know it's not impossible, but you never regularly see discussions like "I've got an Ungor force, is it okay if I take an extra 20%?". The game is still a 2k point limit, the unit still costs x points, if the player doesn't think it's worth it it doesn't make the cut.
Eyeballing takes time and game play to get it down, but if you accept that's what you're doing then starting by balancing on wounds, keywords, models or nothing at all is immaterial, because that's all it is - starting point.
Balancing mechanics are only as good as the company or players that come up with them, and has been pointed out for some time GW suck at writing them in popular opinion...
Because there's no arguments to have. It's pro-points people who try to demonstrate post after post how and why a point system is superior. I'm having fun without points and I don't need them.
A points system /is/ superior. This isn't up to debate. It is objectively better because a points system allows for both points and non-points games, thus pleasing more than one audience. Whether you, personally, like it or not is another matter, but objectively, having a points system is better than not having one. The sole reason for AoS not having one is a huge amount of reduced work / effort by GW in order to save time / money.
This seems fairly naive to me. Your attempt at objectively stating why one system is better than the other ignores the forest to focus on the point tree. As I wrote before, the direction a company gives about its product matters a great deal in influencing how that product is used. The world's not as simple as you portray it.
Reduced work (work that also seems only to add strife among the players and never seems to sort itself out) and cost could have been part of the reason for AoS, but do you really think the reasons for switching systems ended there? I think it was clearly strategic and probably took a ton of meetings and internal debates and justifications.
In terms of GW, I think it's fairly easy to see why some of the changes in AoS were made by reading the 40k forum.
A points system /is/ superior. This isn't up to debate. It is objectively better because a points system allows for both points and non-points games, thus pleasing more than one audience. Whether you, personally, like it or not is another matter, but objectively, having a points system is better than not having one. The sole reason for AoS not having one is a huge amount of reduced work / effort by GW in order to save time / money.
Of course it is up for debate.
The way a a game presents itself, and in particular what is seen as the standard way of playing has a huge affect on how the game is played and by whom and whom will be turned off by it. One of the pro point arguments is that the points system allows you to easily play a pick up game with a random stranger in a store, apparently the main USA way to meet and play. That same argument is also the big weak point, it means you are turning up and just playing the same thing every time. That is what each person is expecting. Those who don't want to play the same 1500pt battle week in week out have to try and persuade some random stranger to do something different, and ignore the points. There is a big hurdle to get over. The pro points guys are happy with that hurdle for those who want to play differently.
There are no shortage of points systems, turn up choose and your points system and go for it. Engage in the same pre-game discussion with the other guy you think is perfectly fine for the no-points guys, the difference being you choose a points system they choose scenario/story.
The no points game system does not in any way preclude using your own points system. It is almost certainly better, as your own points system will be tuned to how you want to play and not tuned to how some designer thought you would play. You can tweak the points on the fly as you discuss and resolve balance issues. You can ensure it balances your local meta etc. If your locals play small games you can balance points to that, if they prefer large games you balance points for those. If you want something other than straight battles you can balance points to account for what will be good in your type of games.
The problem with points is that they are only good for the one scenario they were designed for. What works for a 1500pt battle does not work for a ambush scenario, or a breakthrough scenario or a victory in death scenario. It probably doesn't even work for the 500pt battle or 3000pt battle, as different sizes make certain units more or less potent relatively.
So the question would be, if AoS has points then what scenario and size and terrain rules etc etc should those points have been designed around?
You talk of losing pick up games as though it's no big deal. As a gamer who has moved country twice in 6 years and moved city 4 times, it's really nice to be able to easily get a PUG.
It was one of the things that made me keep my GW armies even though I was no fan of the rules at the time. I figured I could find a GW shop and get a PUG in any city, even with my limited German.
Now GW have made every PUG require a fairly lengthy negotiation. Since I have no group I have no established norms and so would need to talk it through with any potential opponent before I could even TRY the game.
Since I'm not too bothered to do that and will just play Saga or KoW instead now, GW have lost me as a customer.
Your "I'm alright Jack" attitude is fairly annoying to people like me, who have multiple painted Fantasy armies and a long engagement with the setting. I'd like to be able to play the game, and that was one of the things that lead me to not sell off my armies a few years ago. But GW's decisions have made that difficult for me at the same time that Mantic put out a book specifically to accommodate people like me.
. That same argument is also the big weak point, it means you are turning up and just playing the same thing every time. That is what each person is expecting. Those who don't want to play the same 1500pt battle week in week out have to try and persuade some random stranger to do something different, and ignore the points. There is a big hurdle to get over. The pro points guys are happy with that hurdle for those who want to play differently
This is also my experience. Point systems main two draws are: tournaments and pick up games.
Often in my experience both of those venues rely on the same basic scenario or a derivative of the same basic scenario and indeed it becomes playing the same basic derivative of scenario over and over, but that is also what a lot of people like.
They can buy an army for that scenario and not have to buy anything else.
Moving to another scenario may mean they have to get more units and that is where a lot of people gripe.
Its the hurdle I myself have had to overcome for many many years when trying to organize campaigns that move beyond pitched battle.
"Those scenarios aren't balanced or fair" is a condensed version of , when you dig down into it, really saying "i don't have the army for that type of scenario and don't want to buy and paint more units for that scenario, and the default scenario is what people are supposed to play so I don't like that you are trying to put scenarios into the event that I have to buy more models for".
Picking up a fan made comp system for AOS is not desirable for those players for a similar reason: its not official. They want to buy a force for the official rules and stick with that and know that that is universal and global no matter where the hypothetically go. Its hard to talk about tactics and strategy when there are different comps that change that up.
Selling fan comp is a very difficult sell, and always has been
Selling a system that requires talking to your opponent has also gone over poorly because the market doesn't want that. They don't want to talk to their opponent. They want to roll up to a game, deploy, play, go home without potentially having to say a single word.
Now on the flip side there is a growing number of people starting to embrace the new direction but after 20+ years of the tabletop gaming experience solidifying around tournament point systems and fully supporting pick up games where campaigning and what not are a side thought, to switch up and now require it has caused a lot of bitter resentment.
The divide from which I doubt will ever heal; see also D&D vs Pathfinder.
GW obviously have alienated a significant number of former fantasy fans with AoS.
Clearly it isn't going to become the kind of game that can replace WHFB the way that WHFB was played. There isn't going to be an official points system.
If your enjoyment of the game relies on an official points system, it's time to find a different game to play. There are various good alternatives, including Kings of War, Hordes of The Things, and Dragon Rampant.
I hope they don't go with an official points system. I like freewheeling games that require a bit of self regulation (alien concept maybe), but AoS has more problems than just the points or lack of.
Selling a system that requires talking to your opponent has also gone over poorly because the market doesn't want that. They don't want to talk to their opponent. They want to roll up to a game, deploy, play, go home without potentially having to say a single word.
Now that is a truly sad state of affairs. If that is "the market" for current GW, then I'm out.
Selling a system that requires talking to your opponent has also gone over poorly because the market doesn't want that. They don't want to talk to their opponent. They want to roll up to a game, deploy, play, go home without potentially having to say a single word.
Now that is a truly sad state of affairs. If that is "the market" for current GW, then I'm out.
I hope he's just talking about GW's market. If he's talking about the hobby at large, he's definitely wrong, and it's the kind of "kids these days" statement I'd expect from some grognard on TMP rather than Dakka.
My observation on the polls has been strongly toward a system where there is no negotiation, a global ruleset with no comp, that caters primarily to pick up games. Tournaments benefit indirectly as tournaments are basically a chain of pick up games over the course of a day or two.
When I say not having to say a single word I don't mean that most people want to not actually talk to their opponent, but that for all intents and purposes the conversation that they hold does not have to be about what type of rules they are playing and on anything else.
Do you find that the majority of players want to negotiate rules and don't care about pick up games?
I personally don't mind the negotiation part. However the vast bulk of my community does not want to negotiate, they want to play RAW. The AOS players in my area, which has gone up in number, also primarily want to play RAW with no comp, no points, just throw models down now because thats the official way to do it, but the divide in the community is that the other half want points but don't want to use user-comp, they want official points, so they play other things (Kings of War died, there is currently no fantasy system in my area now other than the AOS players... everyone else migrated to Infinity, Armada, X Wing, and now Gates of Antares)
Thats' just it though. The polls that have been about the negotiation phase have all universally been very much against having to negotiate. They haven't had a mixture of results at all.
auticus wrote: Thats' just it though. The polls that have been about the negotiation phase have all universally been very much against having to negotiate. They haven't had a mixture of results at all.
And have these polls been sent out to a variety of forums, people and blogs or just in the usual echo chambers?
They've been everywhere. From forums to facebook groups. Of course nothing is scientifically proven or adequate but the anti-negotiation phase has been stronger in every place BUT the fan pages (if you go to a fb fan page and ask if its a big deal, you'll get a more evenly split answer as opposed to anywhere else)
Its enough to make me conclude based off of the little evidence we can get that most people who play these games don't want to negotiate what ruleset they are using and instead want to just show up and play.
Its also a common topic in other games that are not GW - as they are usually comparing their game with 40k or AOS. Infinity and XWing forums both have this come up from time to time, and of course this is a common thread in a kings of war forum.
That people continue to rant against AOS now, coming on eight months after release is intriguing and that its a semi common topic on NON gw forums/pages is also intriguing.
Theres a lot of raw, embittered, unable to move on, ex WFB players still out there, I suppose.
Oddly, my own WFB books and armies didn't seem to immolate at the same time as the WFB world did, so I don't personally have much of a problem with AoS replacing it.
If it brings new or younger blood in with a more relaxed attitude towards negotiating a game between opponents and getting some enjoyment out of the whole hobby, then that is only a positive.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Theres a lot of raw, embittered, unable to move on, ex WFB players still out there, I suppose.
Oddly, my own WFB books and armies didn't seem to immolate at the same time as the WFB world did, so I don't personally have much of a problem with AoS replacing it.
If it brings new or younger blood in with a more relaxed attitude towards negotiating a game between opponents and getting some enjoyment out of the whole hobby, then that is only a positive.
What kids going to pay GW prices? I'm an old fart but I remember when pocket money could buy you something nowadays there's very little under £20.
Kids don't have money except Xmas and birthdays and I don't know many that will pick unassembled minis over a game.
For the cost of one army you can buy a decent pc or a console with several games, both offer more than just games as well these days they let you watch bluerays and several streaming services as well as access to the web.
GW is going after a demographic with no interest in their product the "Apple generation" who'll Que days for a new phone look down on wargaming.
As for a more relaxed game that's not gonna happen no points just leaves the game open to abuse intentional or not.
Those embittered players have every reason to be embittered, they got screwed hard and summarily dumped. even prostitutes get better treatment. So yeah, I get the bitter, loyalty got flushed, and while no their books and models werent destroyed, we all know what happens to OOP games. they are dead. AoS may not be a total failure ( where I am it most certainly is, with only our 1 gw even allowing it in their store, but that gw is likely to close down soon, due to a combo of terrible location, garbage staff and numerous non game related issues) but it did break the whfb community, and gw better pay attention, TSR and FASA were both larger titans than GW, and they both went extinct for exactly this kind of stuff. had GW given a heads up that AoS was going to be a radical departure before dropping it on the world at large, it might have won some good will, but GW is awful at customer relations in that way and more and more do not have a finger on the pulse. 5 years ago we had several stores that carried gw ranges, played gw games, and actively promoted it, now, its just one sad little gw store. they most certainly can go bankrupt if they arent careful. rant over.
Any game out there. There are very few games that are still their original. some have been passed around more than others. This is a hobby that overwhelmingly relies on word of mouth and older players getting newer ones in, GW specifically has missed the point on that. Alienating a large base of players is not a good idea, being smug about it is even worse, look at 4th ed D&D as a good example, that debacle nearly killed D&D and gave Pathfinder the #1 slot it has yet to relinquish.
What kids going to pay GW prices? I'm an old fart but I remember when pocket money could buy you something nowadays there's very little under £20.
Kids don't have money except Xmas and birthdays and I don't know many that will pick unassembled minis over a game.
I've seen this argument a lot of times. In the context of the accessibility of the game, I've got a couple of questions:
1. On average, how much pocket money do parents in the UK give their children each month (or day, whatever)?
1. How much does an everyday commodity like a bus ticket, a loaf of bread, a can of beer, a cup of coffee etc. cost?
I'm asking this because it never ceases to amaze me how I can afford GW's miniatures, while living in a third world country, and so many hobbyists on the internet are moaning that GW's prices are driving them into the ground. I get that they are somewhat more expensive than other miniatures, but still...
I mean, GW's primary market is in the UK. The hobby was virtually build for the UK player and is somewhat priced in accordance to the quality of life there. How is this an issue?
What kids going to pay GW prices? I'm an old fart but I remember when pocket money could buy you something nowadays there's very little under £20.
Kids don't have money except Xmas and birthdays and I don't know many that will pick unassembled minis over a game.
I've seen this argument a lot of times. In the context of the accessibility of the game, I've got a couple of questions:
1. On average, how much pocket money do parents in the UK give their children each month (or day, whatever)?
1. How much does an everyday commodity like a bus ticket, a loaf of bread, a can of beer, a cup of coffee etc. cost?
I'm asking this because it never ceases to amaze me how I can afford GW's miniatures, while living in a third world country, and so many hobbyists on the internet are moaning that GW's prices are driving them into the ground. I get that they are somewhat more expensive than other miniatures, but still...
I mean, GW's primary market is in the UK. The hobby was virtually build for the UK player and is somewhat priced in accordance to the quality of life there. How is this an issue?
I wouldn't consider Bulgaria a third world country, especially compared to the UK.
Any game out there. There are very few games that are still their original. some have been passed around more than others. This is a hobby that overwhelmingly relies on word of mouth and older players getting newer ones in, GW specifically has missed the point on that. Alienating a large base of players is not a good idea, being smug about it is even worse, look at 4th ed D&D as a good example, that debacle nearly killed D&D and gave Pathfinder the #1 slot it has yet to relinquish.
Well, considering I'm a Napoleonics player with multiple sides from various manufacturers and aren't tied to any particular ruleset, excuse me if I don't lose any sleep
I wouldn't consider Bulgaria a third world country, especially compared to the UK.
Ok, second world country then . To add more fuel to the fire - British youngsters come to spend their summer vacation here because it is insanely cheap. The amount of money they are throwing makes me believe that they can certainly afford GW's prices - I've had this impression from other sources as well, but this is a direct observation so it must weigh a little more. I would post a three part video, explaining this summer migration, were it not unsuitable for younger audiences...
I wouldn't consider Bulgaria a third world country, especially compared to the UK.
Ok, second world country then . To add more fuel to the fire - British youngsters come to spend their summer vacation here because it is insanely cheap. I would post a three part video, explaining this summer migration, were it not unsuitable for younger audiences...
There is that and that when you compare beaches like Maldon, UK to anywhere on the Black Sea coast...well yeah. grab that plane and go. Hell I would rather be there than SoCal or Florida.
Rent and food cost a lot more in the UK. Rent is especially high in the South East and London.
When I was working there as a teacher, after I'd paid for my rent in a crappy flat in a bad part of town and my transport costs (which were really high as well) I didn't have much at all left over for luxuries.
Da Boss wrote: Rent and food cost a lot more in the UK. Rent is especially high in the South East and London.
When I was working there as a teacher, after I'd paid for my rent in a crappy flat in a bad part of town and my transport costs (which were really high as well) I didn't have much at all left over for luxuries.
Cheapest units you can buy for AoS are probably the individual special character clam shells, which are £9 and up. (Seraphons start at £15.)
Thanks for that. To be honest, I knew that rent and transport costs were relatively high in the UK, but I had no idea that youngsters get that amount of money per week. I imagined it more in the line of 10 quid a day.
Oh yes, transport costs are ridiculous. My daily commute to work would be £15 if I bought it on the day, and my season ticket only makes it a fraction cheaper. That's the price of a Warhammer Fantasy regiment box almost every day!
I think GW is still well within the realms of pocket money. that link states the average 12-15 year old is getting £7 a week, £28-35 a month. That's a box set every month, or a character + paints, as well as Birthdays and Christmases to get the "big stuff". In fact seems more affordable than it was for me when I was a kid!
What kids going to pay GW prices? I'm an old fart but I remember when pocket money could buy you something nowadays there's very little under £20.
Kids don't have money except Xmas and birthdays and I don't know many that will pick unassembled minis over a game.
I've seen this argument a lot of times. In the context of the accessibility of the game, I've got a couple of questions:
1. On average, how much pocket money do parents in the UK give their children each month (or day, whatever)?
1. How much does an everyday commodity like a bus ticket, a loaf of bread, a can of beer, a cup of coffee etc. cost?
I'm asking this because it never ceases to amaze me how I can afford GW's miniatures, while living in a third world country, and so many hobbyists on the internet are moaning that GW's prices are driving them into the ground. I get that they are somewhat more expensive than other miniatures, but still...
I mean, GW's primary market is in the UK. The hobby was virtually build for the UK player and is somewhat priced in accordance to the quality of life there. How is this an issue?
Pocket money your looking at £5-10 a week if you get an allowance at all.
Dunno about elsewhere if I want a return trip to town 6 miles away I'm paying £5, a loaf is £1 near enough that for a cup of tea over for that for a bottle of pop.
Bear in mind minimum wage is only just going up to £7.50 this year, one hours work won't buy you a model if your young and have a crap job.
So yeah £700 for an army is a major investment and few parents will buy into gw stuff because they know the kid won't stick with it and the models will sit in a box.
It's not like the 90`s we don't need a game store to meet up with friends we can communicate in so many different ways and play games online easily together.
Kids don't need to spend anywhere near £700 on an army. £75 on Age of Sigmar or Dark Vengence and you've got an army for yourself and a brother/friend to play with.
Only difference for kids nowadays is you don't get loads of useable card scenery anymore, which is a real shame.
Maybe, but then why have 40k and whfb tournaments been so popular the past twenty years when list building has had such a footprint in the game that skill is almost seen as secondary; if you aren't fielding one of the big lists your chance at victory becomes smaller.
auticus wrote: Maybe, but then why have 40k and whfb tournaments been so popular the past twenty years when list building has had such a footprint in the game that skill is almost seen as secondary; if you aren't fielding one of the big lists your chance at victory becomes smaller.
Because for the longest time, they were really the only games being played. When I started back in third, essentially, my 'alternative' to 40k was warhammer fantasy, both of which were broken games. even now, with the large number of successful games in the last five years built with balance in mind, 40k keeps going because of the legacy effects, and network effects (you play 40k becaus your friends play, or you already have 40k armies), even though both are somewhat diminished from even five years ago.
It's not about wanting to play a broken game. It's about that broken game being all that was on offer. And under the circumstances, when your only choices are play a broken game, or don't play, is it any wonder people played what was essentially the only game in town? Choices were rather limited. The internet wasn't what it was, and knowledge or the ability to network and build a community of those smaller games was so much harder. Now all you need to do is join a Facebook group.
I don't think AoS is intended to be a 'desperately serious' kind of game. Fans certainly see it as a game in which the point is to enjoy taking part rather than specifically to win.
It's got a rough balance inherently, as most units are fairly similar in stats if taken in the basic format. For example 10 Skinks have 10 wounds and 10 shots, which compensates for having lower To Hit and To Save than a unit of 6 Sigmarines with 6 wounds and 6 H2H attacks.
I don't really see why people would want to play AoS as a tournament game.
GW of course see it as a way to promote books and kits.
Haechi wrote: Then AoS is a very good competitive game cause not only that one was hilarious and fun, but it was also very close and epic.
It absolutely works for a competitive game when, assuming your players aren't all familiar w/each other then use a comp or make a comp/guidelines for your event to use. I don't see the point in arguing about the AoS out-of-the-box level of competitive play, or really how to fight a battle at all. Though they really should have done this from the start instead if waiting a month for so much sand to get in *BEEEEEEEEP!* and now the community online or in-person is pretty good about making sure new players use scenarios and if they want a competitive guide to use one of the existing comps. I, too, wondered if AoS would be able to work as a game at tournaments and with Clash Comp at least is worked soooo surprisingly well. Even rules debates we've had at any of our gaming clubs dispute a rule we don't use anyway, like measuring from the the model--we know to measure from the base. Or cap summoning, or doing away with sudden death victory conditions.
Yeah, if you go beyond your close gaming group and need to control for the unknown then no need to stick to the rule pamphlet. Personally, I don't debate it and neither do any of our AoS group because we agree so much of it just doesn't work so we accept, move on and play with a set of guidelines so we can enjoy playing.
Addition: In the US at least many of the GW stores (at least on both coasts because I can't say for sure about the rest) act often as "babysitters" for after school or weekends. For lack of a better word I say this, as well as humor between myself, groups and store managers (these are all now one-man stores I speak of). My final GW in Maryland was an affluent area (not me!) but even in less-so areas it happens a lot. Parents would pick up the kids (all under 16 usually) in the evening and buy something on a pretty regular basis. This happens waaaaaay too much on the weekends when mom or dad can dump Junior on the GW store and show up later. So, it's less of an allowance system and more a feeling of obligation to buy stuff now-and-then to keep the store and kid happy.
GW's managed to create a mindset in it's fans where only GW is real wargaming. I can't explain how they managed it but I've seen it firsthand*. It's a work of marketing genius.
AoS is a pretty good example - people defend it because it's got a GW logo on, and slate Kings Of War because it doesn't.
*One of my gaming friends still regards everything non-GW as inferior/rip off products. He sold his WHFB army and didn't even look at AoS because of the cost.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why play a game just because it's from GW? AoS is only the replacement in the sense that GW canned one fantasy game and published another one.
People should change to a system that actually is designed for tournament play. AoS clearly is not it.
Off the top of my head because we have the models, an established gaming group (from local to international for events and online communities ) and yes, part of that's what we are used to so willing to try.
I don't like AOS because its from GW. I like AOS because I like the visuals and the game is something that I can live with. Granted I'm not a pick up gamer or a tournament player.
I don't like Kings of War, not because its not GW, but because the models are mostly IMO bad and because the game itself is rather boring and static (again IMO). I have the books for KOW, and gave it a try several times and I can't get into it. It reminds me of everything I didn't like about 7th edition WHFB, which was an edition I quit for a few year.s
When was WFB ever marketed and produced as GWs "serious tournament game"?
It's certainly been viewed that way by staffers and longbeards for the best part of 20 years, but it was probably never *marketed* as such, no. Had GW any finger near any pulse, they would have picked up on that. It's a big mistake to assume that customers use your product for what you intended them to use it for.
It was never a tournament game. Neither 40k or fantasy was ever designed to be played in a tournament. Tournaments were always just a way to promote the hobby and show off well painted armies in White Dwarf to encourage people to pay/paint.
Honestly the best decision GW has made is to say "the hell with this" and stop trying to balance a game they clearly are incompetent at.
When was WFB ever marketed and produced as GWs "serious tournament game"?
It's certainly been viewed that way by staffers and longbeards for the best part of 20 years, but it was probably never *marketed* as such, no. Had GW any finger near any pulse, they would have picked up on that. It's a big mistake to assume that customers use your product for what you intended them to use it for.
So why are claims being made that it was GW's "serious tournament game", other then that's what people wanted to believe, butp probably wasn't true?
It was never marketed as such but the community at large turned it into one. The community at large is what demands the serious tournament game, and is why the split occurred and why there is so much bitter rage still burning eight months later.
auticus wrote: It was never marketed as such but the community at large turned it into one. The community at large is what demands the serious tournament game, and is why the split occurred and why there is so much bitter rage still burning eight months later.
Well "the tournament community" perhaps, not the community at large. Tournaments are a subdivision of the whole.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why play a game just because it's from GW? AoS is only the replacement in the sense that GW canned one fantasy game and published another one.
People should change to a system that actually is designed for tournament play. AoS clearly is not it.
Off the top of my head because we have the models, an established gaming group (from local to international for events and online communities ) and yes, part of that's what we are used to so willing to try.
You don't have to use GW figures only with GW rules. I should try HOTT, Dragon Rampant or Kings of War instead, or just carry on with WHFB 8th edition.
AoS isn't WHFB. It's absolutely fair to criticise it for unambitious design, clunky mechanics and so on, but to criticise it for not being WHFB is bordering on the irrational.
I agree. However... I'm finding that the tournament community seems to be parallel with the pick up game community. They seem to tie in very closely as they both tend to want to use the same rules and the same style of game, and I'm finding over the months that these two subsets combined seem at least to make up the vast bulk of what one finds in public.
A lot of people that play pick-up games (those with time/space commitments or few gaming friends) are likely to go to tournaments for the same reason; to get a few games in at once.
There's always an assumption that people attending tournaments are there just to win, but in my experience at least half of them are just there for a days gaming with new opponents. That's the reason I go to them.
Yeah thats not a good assumption to make (that tournament players are there just to win). The thing with pick up gamers and tournament gamers (i tend to lump them together as their wants are typically very similar) is that they require a game that has a universal ruleset that is the same no matter where they go, and this is where lack of points is really the burner because having to negotiate is annoying to a lot of those people who are looking to just show up and play.
This is why player comp packs are treated with disdain unless that pack happens to be universally accepted (so things like the ITC in 40k are ok because a lot of events use that so its semi-"official")
So why are claims being made that it was GW's "serious tournament game", other then that's what people wanted to believe, butp probably wasn't true?
Because it was, in all but GW officially stating it as such. They even ran hardcore tournaments for it in WHW (I've forgotten the name).
Just because GW didn't call it a serious tournament game doesn't mean that's not what it was.
So?
That Doesn't mean it was one, either. Gw ran, and run a lot of different events. Some were tournaments. Picking one of those types of events and saying it defines the whole identity of the game is being dishonest, especially when tournaments aren't all that gw run.
When 40k and wfb were the only games in town, it stands to reason that people will try and run tournaments with them. Which is fine. But it's a completely different thing to try and state that they were tournament-focused games. That claim is laughable. 40k, and fantasy have, and have had no end of imbalance. Games like warmachine, with privateer press' steamroller format, and infinity, with Corvus belli's itc have far better claims to be tournament games. Wfb? Nothing more than elitist snobbery at the heart of it I'm afraid. That game was terrible for tournaments. Some players might have wanted it to be a tournament focused game, but what players want and what gw produced are often two completely separate things.
WRG Ancients specifically was written for running tournaments, and for decades was the go to game for any Ancient/Mediaeval mass battle you might have wanted to play., tournament, friendly, casual or simulation.
WHFB was not written specifically for tournaments, but GW gave it the same kind of points system and army lists as WRG uses, and then ran a lot of tournaments over several decades with the rules.
Therefore it can be said that WHFB was and was not a tournament game. But what does it matter? AoS is the topic of the thread, and AoS is meant as an intro level skirmish game, not for tournaments at all.
I quite like having multiple points systems for AoS now that it is handed over to fans. Oddly, because my PUG are in a GW I play PUGs with no points, and games at home with points.
I think a light ruleset is great, especially for new blood - I do think the lack of an official balancing mechanic could be dangerous for GW gaining new players simply because lots of hobbyist are born out of two brothers playing each other - which is like an El Classico every game!
I know when I was 10 years old we often did just play 2nd edition 40k with whatever we had - but we always aspired to having points games, and as we got older (through 3rd edition) that became a reality with super competitive games at 1500 points taking up our Sunday afternoons.
What I'm saying is, GW need to get the experience just right for young brothers starting the hobby together - otherwise not only will there be punch ups, but the experience might sour them from continuing with the hobby.
Although this is all speculation on my part, or from my own experiences. I have no idea what sort of experience two 10 year old brothers would with AoS and its lack of points. Would they not care, or would it take away the fun for them?
Therefore it can be said that WHFB was and was not a tournament game. But what does it matter? AoS is the topic of the thread, and AoS is meant as an intro level skirmish game, not for tournaments at all.
That hasn't prevented people from running or planning tournaments with it, same as WFB.
Just my 2 cents.
I almost completely dropped 40k due to to AoS. I'm holding on the minis while hoping for an AoSification of 40k.
AoS has no official point system, and that's what makes it great compared to 40k.
Too many times i wanted to buy/play some list/model only to be forced to aknowledge that i would just spend the game removing my models from the table. I play tyrannids, so 90% of my codex isn't "competitive".
In AoS if i like a model then i can play that model. AoS wins.
As demonstrated by SCGT the game is well balanced and playable in a tournament setting. All that was needed by GW was not forcing theyr balancing on us, they have stated multiple times that they are not a gaming company. Let players handle that part, they are much better at it. As long as GW keeps writing narrative and releasing models then i'm a happy customer, since that is what they are good at.
Having a balancing actor that is indipendent from the commercial interests of the game is a really good thing. No chances of power creep.
I honestly foresee AoS having a much brigther future than 40K, and i seriously hope that 40K makes the leap.
Spoletta wrote: Let players handle that part, they are much better at it. As long as GW keeps writing narrative and releasing models then i'm a happy customer, since that is what they are good at..
I'm an AoS fan myself but I have a problem with that statement... Most if not all of the AoS lore blows, and worst, most if not all is very, VERY poorly written. The Seraphon army book is a literature garbage and Wardens of the Everqueen is a pain to read.
I wish they kept the old world lore entirely.
Spoletta wrote: Let players handle that part, they are much better at it. As long as GW keeps writing narrative and releasing models then i'm a happy customer, since that is what they are good at..
I'm an AoS fan myself but I have a problem with that statement... Most if not all of the AoS lore blows, and worst, most if not all is very, VERY poorly written. The Seraphon army book is a literature garbage and Wardens of the Everqueen is a pain to read.
I wish they kept the old world lore entirely.
if they had done that, I could have stuck with AoS despite its rules. Old World with new rules and new concepts of play while not flushing an IP that still generates revenue ( video games, card games, rpgs, etc..from FFG)
Spoletta wrote: Just my 2 cents.
I almost completely dropped 40k due to to AoS. I'm holding on the minis while hoping for an AoSification of 40k.
AoS has no official point system, and that's what makes it great compared to 40k.
Too many times i wanted to buy/play some list/model only to be forced to aknowledge that i would just spend the game removing my models from the table. I play tyrannids, so 90% of my codex isn't "competitive".
In AoS if i like a model then i can play that model. AoS wins.
As demonstrated by SCGT the game is well balanced and playable in a tournament setting. All that was needed by GW was not forcing theyr balancing on us, they have stated multiple times that they are not a gaming company. Let players handle that part, they are much better at it. As long as GW keeps writing narrative and releasing models then i'm a happy customer, since that is what they are good at.
Having a balancing actor that is indipendent from the commercial interests of the game is a really good thing. No chances of power creep.
I honestly foresee AoS having a much brigther future than 40K, and i seriously hope that 40K makes the leap.
Spoletta wrote: I almost completely dropped 40k due to to AoS. I'm holding on the minis while hoping for an AoSification of 40k. ... I honestly foresee AoS having a much brigther future than 40K, and i seriously hope that 40K makes the leap.
I was just talking to my brother about 'Age of Horus' last night, and how extremely excited I am for GeeDub to pull that trigger. Hopefully they aren't idiots again and don't nuke the 40k universe, but even if they do my CSM will be ready to spill forth from their long hypersleep and roll many dice across whatever seething hellscape we're given in its place.
Strange as it is, as much as I have a burning desire for a balancing mechanism for my games of Fantasy Skirmish, I couldn't care less about my games of Science-Fantasy Skirmish. I legit just want to use my Chaos Dudes and Roll Dice ... as opposed to wanting to Design A List, Build To A List, Paint To A List and Roll Dice with AoS. (I blame 20+ years of playing WHFB, and just 10 of 40k)
Kilkrazy wrote: The interesting thing is that 40K's base rules on movement and combat are very similar to AoS.
Spoletta wrote: Let players handle that part, they are much better at it. As long as GW keeps writing narrative and releasing models then i'm a happy customer, since that is what they are good at..
I'm an AoS fan myself but I have a problem with that statement... Most if not all of the AoS lore blows, and worst, most if not all is very, VERY poorly written. The Seraphon army book is a literature garbage and Wardens of the Everqueen is a pain to read.
I wish they kept the old world lore entirely.
if they had done that, I could have stuck with AoS despite its rules. Old World with new rules and new concepts of play while not flushing an IP that still generates revenue ( video games, card games, rpgs, etc..from FFG)
This more than points would have kept a lot of players around me interested, far more is the interest in the game lost than when players look at the current world they have to play in.
Storm cast eternals are stated as a reason some players have specifically given, don't want to give it even a try as they don't want to ever have to play against them. They want to play In the old world, but GW is pushing the new.
The dwarfs didn't go over that well ether. Khorne was barely noticed, they just feel overused in the naritives at this point.
GW needs more than anything to get all the army's they are keeping up to date In there naritives, and be honest dropping the others now. Points are he least of the issues for my groups now.
They want to play In the old world, but GW is pushing the new.
Having read a good chunk of the published fiction I can tell you that GW is certainly not pushing its new world - it's pushing the new heroes. The worlds themselves are barely touched in lieu of more characters. I can't agree enough with Haechi about the new lore - after so many published books it is clear as day to me that the setting will remain as it is and will not make the quality jump that is sorely needed for some people to get into AoS. Instead more and more named stormcast, banshees, world dragons and great unclean ones will pop up to have their two minute speech with the mono-grey background behind them.
What's missing is pretty simple though.. Freaking maps. Borders. Named locations and local people living there.
Realms don't mean much, and in the book they keep pushing random locations names and battles names we've never heard before and have no material to build our imagination off.
They should have kept the old world, half destroyed if they want to, remake the borders and tell us exactly where's who and what threat they face, then give a mountain to Sigmar where he's building his Stormcasts from. An Olympus of some sort.
I'm not even much of a sci-fi guy but I would be all over 40k if it got AoS style rules. I like a lot of the models but the points/rules/one look at 40k forums and the toxicity around balance is a complete turnoff.
Spoletta wrote: Let players handle that part, they are much better at it. As long as GW keeps writing narrative and releasing models then i'm a happy customer, since that is what they are good at..
I'm an AoS fan myself but I have a problem with that statement... Most if not all of the AoS lore blows, and worst, most if not all is very, VERY poorly written. The Seraphon army book is a literature garbage and Wardens of the Everqueen is a pain to read.
I wish they kept the old world lore entirely.
if they had done that, I could have stuck with AoS despite its rules. Old World with new rules and new concepts of play while not flushing an IP that still generates revenue ( video games, card games, rpgs, etc..from FFG)
This more than points would have kept a lot of players around me interested, far more is the interest in the game lost than when players look at the current world they have to play in.
Storm cast eternals are stated as a reason some players have specifically given, don't want to give it even a try as they don't want to ever have to play against them. They want to play In the old world, but GW is pushing the new.
The dwarfs didn't go over that well ether. Khorne was barely noticed, they just feel overused in the naritives at this point.
GW needs more than anything to get all the army's they are keeping up to date In there naritives, and be honest dropping the others now. Points are he least of the issues for my groups now.
Im curious what you mean by the dwarfs didn't go over well. Thanks
They want to play In the old world, but GW is pushing the new.
Having read a good chunk of the published fiction I can tell you that GW is certainly not pushing its new world - it's pushing the new heroes. The worlds themselves are barely touched in lieu of more characters. I can't agree enough with Haechi about the new lore - after so many published books it is clear as day to me that the setting will remain as it is and will not make the quality jump that is sorely needed for some people to get into AoS. Instead more and more named stormcast, banshees, world dragons and great unclean ones will pop up to have their two minute speech with the mono-grey background behind them.
Thanks for posting. You've managed to articulate one of the reasons I am most off put about the AoS fluff. I was never someone who cared for special characters or the big players of each faction - but instead enjoyed the background and world building materials - which we now get virtually nothing on it seems. Still I enjoyed all the fluff in the Grand Alliance Death (there wasn't much) precisely because it did give more background information.
the characters are just so lame in the AoS setting, so many of them couldn't even carry a story in the old world let alone the new. let the "mary sues" just go away already. Make all new characters, let the old world just die. but on the point of AoS to 40k, that would be the straw that send GW bankrupt. AoS might be selling better than fantasy, but that still makes it a loss, 15% loss in sales is pretty much unspinnable. do that to the main tourney game and their cash cow, thats corporate suicide.
thekingofkings wrote: the characters are just so lame in the AoS setting, so many of them couldn't even carry a story in the old world let alone the new. let the "mary sues" just go away already. Make all new characters, let the old world just die. but on the point of AoS to 40k, that would be the straw that send GW bankrupt. AoS might be selling better than fantasy, but that still makes it a loss, 15% loss in sales is pretty much unspinnable. do that to the main tourney game and their cash cow, thats corporate suicide.
"Is GW going “All-In” ?
Yes I can understand that there is a GW desire to get the fledging new system off to a strong start, and that it could take over a year just to go through and rework all the old factions. But one thing isn’t changing.
Both retailers and some insiders tell BoLS that after 8 months Age of Sigmar has not meet sales expectations. They all report the same thing, a sharp spike of interest last July followed by a quick drop off of sales that has stubbornly refused to budge. At some point financial reality has to be faced.
Something will have to de done to either fundamentally change the Age of Sigmar game to increase it’s appeal, or it will need to be cut back substantially, befitting it’s financial revenue. No company can let their cash cow languish for too long before the the cold face of reality will come knocking…
So what do you think is going on?"
According to bols sales are still dire and I'm sure they have more contacts than most individuals.
There's nothing but anecdotal hearsay to indicate the situations improved in any area of the globe.
thekingofkings wrote: the characters are just so lame in the AoS setting, so many of them couldn't even carry a story in the old world let alone the new. let the "mary sues" just go away already. Make all new characters, let the old world just die. but on the point of AoS to 40k, that would be the straw that send GW bankrupt. AoS might be selling better than fantasy, but that still makes it a loss, 15% loss in sales is pretty much unspinnable. do that to the main tourney game and their cash cow, thats corporate suicide.
"Is GW going “All-In” ?
Yes I can understand that there is a GW desire to get the fledging new system off to a strong start, and that it could take over a year just to go through and rework all the old factions. But one thing isn’t changing.
Both retailers and some insiders tell BoLS that after 8 months Age of Sigmar has not meet sales expectations. They all report the same thing, a sharp spike of interest last July followed by a quick drop off of sales that has stubbornly refused to budge. At some point financial reality has to be faced.
Something will have to de done to either fundamentally change the Age of Sigmar game to increase it’s appeal, or it will need to be cut back substantially, befitting it’s financial revenue. No company can let their cash cow languish for too long before the the cold face of reality will come knocking…
So what do you think is going on?"
According to bols sales are still dire and I'm sure they have more contacts than most individuals.
There's nothing but anecdotal hearsay to indicate the situations improved in any area of the globe.
I would assume it is probably doing pretty well in some areas. No game is ever universally reviled, but it wont be enough to save it, but 40k is selling still, and selling well, it would be stupid to "AoS" 40k and consign it to further diluting GW customers and make a profitable game less so.
I would assume it is probably doing pretty well in some areas. No game is ever universally reviled, but it wont be enough to save it, but 40k is selling still, and selling well, it would be stupid to "AoS" 40k and consign it to further diluting GW customers and make a profitable game less so.
I'd just like to point out that 40k is also only selling well in some areas rather than universally. It may very well be MOST areas in fact, but the decline has been very sharp here in Australia.
I'd also comment that if GW don't know what went wrong with Fantasy to begin with, and don't know what went wrong with AoS, they might make the same mistake thinking they are helping. They seem to have that kind of corporate culture, where nothing is ever the fault of the managers, the reason they are losing sales can't possibly be poor decisions on their part. It's those damn dirty front line storemen, they clearly ruined the AoS launch by not pushing it hard enough. Better AoSify 40k and have them push it even harder!
definately the corporate culture at GW is seriously bad, but 40k overall is doing well still, on average, Australia is not unique in seeing GW go down, you guys are likely just as much victims of the currency problem.
I'd also comment that if GW don't know what went wrong with Fantasy to begin with, and don't know what went wrong with AoS, they might make the same mistake thinking they are helping. They seem to have that kind of corporate culture, where nothing is ever the fault of the managers, the reason they are losing sales can't possibly be poor decisions on their part. It's those damn dirty front line storemen, they clearly ruined the AoS launch by not pushing it hard enough. Better AoSify 40k and have them push it even harder!
That has so much potential to be true, it's not even funny.
Yeah, I'm going with sales vary place to place. I've personally not be in a place where it's plunged but obviously there are PLENTY places out there It's been interesting to hear store owners in different regions talk to one another where it is an extreme on both sides: massive boost vs. sharp decline. As for online articles, I'll just say, news is rarely good news, but bad news "sells" Take a look at these sites and see how many articles announce increases in play or sales. These are separate from hobby posts, product reviews, etc. Not many, eh?
What I never figured out is why they didn't just make 2 versions of Fantasy; One for grown-ups and one for kids and/or entry level players. They could get the new fluff in, with new models and updated rules and then keep a simple version for those not interested in complex games.
Although they do seem to have that idea headed over to 40k with their kid boxes. Still, it seems like a missed opportunity.
thekingofkings wrote: definately the corporate culture at GW is seriously bad, but 40k overall is doing well still, on average, Australia is not unique in seeing GW go down, you guys are likely just as much victims of the currency problem.
Total annual sales by GW are significantly down from 10 years ago. It's true that GW dropped all the SGs and bitz, (because they weren't selling enough) but the bulk of the decline must have come from the three core games.
Since LoTR had already experienced a very serious decline between 2003 and 2006, it seems like that the declines between 2007 and 2015 must have come mainly from WHFB and 40K. As the population is not declining, surely this shows that GW are losing players, attracting fewer new starters, and selling less active players?
Doesn't seem like either of them were designed for tournament games.
But, we've done this already, alas.
since fantasy has tanked yeah, around here its GW's only game represented anywhere and it is the main tourney game here for GW.
That doesn't mean its designed as a tournament game. Or sold as one.
GW games have as many individual ideas about what they are, as there are individual players.
Could easily see GW doing a AoS to 40K. No points as well. It encourages casual play and purchases over intense frowning over an army book "I fancy buying X model, but I need the rest of the army to go with it"
Spoletta wrote: I almost completely dropped 40k due to to AoS. I'm holding on the minis while hoping for an AoSification of 40k.
...
I honestly foresee AoS having a much brigther future than 40K, and i seriously hope that 40K makes the leap.
I was just talking to my brother about 'Age of Horus' last night, and how extremely excited I am for GeeDub to pull that trigger. Hopefully they aren't idiots again and don't nuke the 40k universe, but even if they do my CSM will be ready to spill forth from their long hypersleep and roll many dice across whatever seething hellscape we're given in its place.
- Salvage
You raise an interesting point here. I've been thinking about it. I feel the same way - ie. that if they AoS-ified 40K but kept the background, I'd be much more amenable to it.
I think this is because the 40K background has so many more possibilities for scenarios and narrative play due to it's nature as a fairly broad Sci Fantasy game. I can think of a pile of scenarios off the top of my head that I would have fun playing out. And the game itself has lots of stories of small engagements that could play out in a very enjoyable way with a light set of rules. I think a light, fun set of rules could get me back into 40K.
Funnily enough though I probably wouldn't feel the same way about Fantasy. With 40K I've always enjoyed the background and imagery more, but Fantasy was a better game, for me. I am a lot more enthusiastic about fantasy as a genre, and have a lot more of my own ideas for it, but somehow that leads me to want a bit more structure in my fantasy rules sets. Weird. Probably should think on that some more.
Nordicus wrote: What I never figured out is why they didn't just make 2 versions of Fantasy; One for grown-ups and one for kids and/or entry level players. They could get the new fluff in, with new models and updated rules and then keep a simple version for those not interested in complex games.
Although they do seem to have that idea headed over to 40k with their kid boxes. Still, it seems like a missed opportunity.
Nordicus wrote: What I never figured out is why they didn't just make 2 versions of Fantasy; One for grown-ups and one for kids and/or entry level players. They could get the new fluff in, with new models and updated rules and then keep a simple version for those not interested in complex games.
Although they do seem to have that idea headed over to 40k with their kid boxes. Still, it seems like a missed opportunity.
Going by my own experience playing GW games, and the very clear trends visible in my local area, 40k was the kids game, Fantasy the grown up game
Nordicus wrote: What I never figured out is why they didn't just make 2 versions of Fantasy; One for grown-ups and one for kids and/or entry level players. They could get the new fluff in, with new models and updated rules and then keep a simple version for those not interested in complex games.
Although they do seem to have that idea headed over to 40k with their kid boxes. Still, it seems like a missed opportunity.
Going by my own experience playing GW games, and the very clear trends visible in my local area, 40k was the kids game, Fantasy the grown up game
That is my point though - They took the "mature" game and turned it on it's head, instead of making two versions of it and try to get both target groups attention. AoS is in bad standing because of both the rules but also the massive mentality change in the game, as I see it anyhow.
Mind you, this is from the perspective of someone who watched battlereports on Fantasy but never played it myself.
Spoletta wrote: I almost completely dropped 40k due to to AoS. I'm holding on the minis while hoping for an AoSification of 40k.
...
I honestly foresee AoS having a much brigther future than 40K, and i seriously hope that 40K makes the leap.
I was just talking to my brother about 'Age of Horus' last night, and how extremely excited I am for GeeDub to pull that trigger. Hopefully they aren't idiots again and don't nuke the 40k universe, but even if they do my CSM will be ready to spill forth from their long hypersleep and roll many dice across whatever seething hellscape we're given in its place.
- Salvage
You raise an interesting point here. I've been thinking about it. I feel the same way - ie. that if they AoS-ified 40K but kept the background, I'd be much more amenable to it.
I think this is because the 40K background has so many more possibilities for scenarios and narrative play due to it's nature as a fairly broad Sci Fantasy game. I can think of a pile of scenarios off the top of my head that I would have fun playing out. And the game itself has lots of stories of small engagements that could play out in a very enjoyable way with a light set of rules. I think a light, fun set of rules could get me back into 40K.
Funnily enough though I probably wouldn't feel the same way about Fantasy. With 40K I've always enjoyed the background and imagery more, but Fantasy was a better game, for me. I am a lot more enthusiastic about fantasy as a genre, and have a lot more of my own ideas for it, but somehow that leads me to want a bit more structure in my fantasy rules sets. Weird. Probably should think on that some more.
Yes, I can really agree with a lot of this. In my opinion it shows the strength of the 40k world building and shows the value of detailed world building for a miniatures game universe. If GW spent more time on the AoS universe to really make it captivating and multi-faceted the narrative gaming would come out naturally as a consequence in my eyes.
Doesn't seem like either of them were designed for tournament games.
But, we've done this already, alas.
since fantasy has tanked yeah, around here its GW's only game represented anywhere and it is the main tourney game here for GW.
That doesn't mean its designed as a tournament game. Or sold as one.
GW games have as many individual ideas about what they are, as there are individual players.
Could easily see GW doing a AoS to 40K. No points as well. It encourages casual play and purchases over intense frowning over an army book "I fancy buying X model, but I need the rest of the army to go with it"
Not any more, you don't. £££
I have seen nothing to indicate encouraging casual play by not having points, this is a huge myth of AoS that you can just "bring whatever" you cant,. you have to bring the warscrolls and whats on them. and GW runs 40k tourneys at their stores, so yeah that does make it a tourney game, or they wouldnt do that.
Nordicus wrote: What I never figured out is why they didn't just make 2 versions of Fantasy; One for grown-ups and one for kids and/or entry level players. They could get the new fluff in, with new models and updated rules and then keep a simple version for those not interested in complex games.
Although they do seem to have that idea headed over to 40k with their kid boxes. Still, it seems like a missed opportunity.
Going by my own experience playing GW games, and the very clear trends visible in my local area, 40k was the kids game, Fantasy the grown up game
Doesn't seem like either of them were designed for tournament games.
But, we've done this already, alas.
since fantasy has tanked yeah, around here its GW's only game represented anywhere and it is the main tourney game here for GW.
That doesn't mean its designed as a tournament game. Or sold as one.
GW games have as many individual ideas about what they are, as there are individual players.
Could easily see GW doing a AoS to 40K. No points as well. It encourages casual play and purchases over intense frowning over an army book "I fancy buying X model, but I need the rest of the army to go with it"
Not any more, you don't. £££
I have seen nothing to indicate encouraging casual play by not having points, this is a huge myth of AoS that you can just "bring whatever" you cant,. you have to bring the warscrolls and whats on them. and GW runs 40k tourneys at their stores, so yeah that does make it a tourney game, or they wouldnt do that.
They also run campaign days and casual events, so it must be a casual game, right? Or they wouldn't do that.
I have seen nothing to indicate encouraging casual play by not having points, this is a huge myth of AoS that you can just "bring whatever" you cant,. you have to bring the warscrolls and whats on them. and GW runs 40k tourneys at their stores, so yeah that does make it a tourney game, or they wouldnt do that.
Sure, that's true if you're playing pick-up games, but among a group of pals there's no reason not to invent new units by combining aspects from different war scrolls to reflect the awesome new non-GW models you've built.
For instance, if I invented a new Human army based on Mediaeval Burma, I would take the Stegadon war scroll as the starting point for a Burmese war elephant, remove the Engine of the Gods and the special rules,, and add more missile shots based on archers from the Brettonian war scrolls..
Honestly, AoS is the result of GW "40kifying" WHFB. The big break was eliminating the points mechanic. I believe GW's design goal for both games has been allowing customers to collect a playable force across the faction ranges. Consider that having factions at all is a balancing mechanic, when you allow cross-faction army building you are either making balance more difficult to design or turning it over to the players' sense of fairness and fun. The latter is true of AoS. I doubt concern about balance is holding GW back from doing the same with 40k. But what might hold them back from making factions entirely permeable is concern about the IP.
AoS is clearly not designed for tournaments. Neither is 40k.
thekingofkings wrote: ...this is a huge myth of AoS that you can just "bring whatever" you cant,. you have to bring the warscrolls and whats on them.
You're appear to be taking "bring whatever" as an absolute, when it's normally stated as a relative, i.e. in comparison to WFB.
If that's not the case, can you give an example of something you can't bring to an AoS game, because I'm not sure i understand your point?
I think he's saying you can't bring 3 skeletons since the warscroll starts at 5 or 10. However that is pretty irrelevant since bringing below the minimum number doesn't really mean much. Now if warscrolls listed a max size that might be more relevant but otherwise bringing whatever does in fact seem to be GW's entire design goal.
And it's a bad one in my opinion. I get that they want to give you the chance to buy any of their products, I recall having the 'pyramid of hobby' explained to me more than once. White Dwarf is on the top, you can sell that to anyone, including non hobbyists. Next is glue and paints, you can sell those to anyone in the hobby regardless of what systems they play. Then comes things like core rules. You can sell the 40k core rules to any 40k player, the LotR rules to any LotR player, etc. Actual models for actual units were the very bottom of the pyramid, only being sell able to the narrowest field of 'people who play x system and y army'.
GW seem to have started with 6th ed 40k and it's allies rules to try and remove that bottom level of the pyramid, so that they can sell any 40k kit to any 40k player. AoS is the logical progression of that.
Now this part is purely my own opinion based on my experience as a faction hopper in many games, but Infinity is a very well balanced game that is very strict about what you can bring compared to AoS. It is easy for me to pick up a model I can't play with my faction though because it's 1) cheap and 2) a beautiful model. Then, once I've bought 2 or 3 blisters (or hell just *a* box) from a faction I can buy one more box (cheaper than almost all GW boxes are these days and like half the price of any AoS releases*) and bam, that's me having bought into that army and thus I will expand it. This has happened multiple times and a similar thing happens with KoW.
GW are trying to get me to buy more models by allowing my army to bring as many allies as I want from any other faction, other companies are doing it by offering game rules that make me want to buy multiple armies to play and (much*) better value for money on their actual models.
thekingofkings wrote: ...this is a huge myth of AoS that you can just "bring whatever" you cant,. you have to bring the warscrolls and whats on them.
You're appear to be taking "bring whatever" as an absolute, when it's normally stated as a relative, i.e. in comparison to WFB.
If that's not the case, can you give an example of something you can't bring to an AoS game, because I'm not sure i understand your point?
I think he's saying you can't bring 3 skeletons since the warscroll starts at 5 or 10.
However that is pretty irrelevant since bringing below the minimum number doesn't really mean much. Now if warscrolls listed a max size that might be more relevant but otherwise bringing whatever does in fact seem to be GW's entire design goal.
That's what I thought he might mean, except you *can* bring less than the minimum unit size?
For myself, I've found that units seem to have an individual sweet spot in terms of size, especially if the board is terrain heavy.
GW seem to have started with 6th ed 40k and it's allies rules to try and remove that bottom level of the pyramid, so that they can sell any 40k kit to any 40k player. AoS is the logical progression of that.
And to me this is something I firstly love about AoS (maybe the best thing about AoS actually), and something GW have been successful with. I don't know anyone who plays just a single AoS "faction" unless it is there first. Most seem to have multiple armies on the go, and this forum is no exception :-)
GW seem to have started with 6th ed 40k and it's allies rules to try and remove that bottom level of the pyramid, so that they can sell any 40k kit to any 40k player. AoS is the logical progression of that.
And to me this is something I firstly love about AoS (maybe the best thing about AoS actually), and something GW have been successful with. I don't know anyone who plays just a single AoS "faction" unless it is there first. Most seem to have multiple armies on the go, and this forum is no exception :-)
True dat! All our players back home have at least two, one for new release and one legacy. Our leader-guy now has 11 armies I'll go back home to pick up and start rebasing my duardin metal and Seraphon
It's only really in 40K/WHFB in the last decade that it became normal to only have a single army.
I've got more than 1 army for everything else (except X-Wing, but it didn't make sense to collect both when there were only 2 and my gaming buddy had the other one).
Variety is good though, but again, that is not something that is in any way special about AoS.
It depends on the game and your depth of involvement.
Ancients includes about 300 different armies, while ACW only has two. A lot of ancients players own several different armies.
If you play naval of any era, you are a small minority, so you need to build at least two opposing fleets to be sure of being able to set up games. (Hence for WW2 naval I have British, German, Italian, US and Japanese fleets.)
Herzlos wrote: It's only really in 40K/WHFB in the last decade that it became normal to only have a single army.
I've got more than 1 army for everything else (except X-Wing, but it didn't make sense to collect both when there were only 2 and my gaming buddy had the other one).
Variety is good though, but again, that is not something that is in any way special about AoS.
Don't think I ever said it was unique to AoS. Do we need to start adding disclaimer tags again when we make positive comments about AoS?
In direct comparison with WHFB 8th it is much much easier to collect multiple small armies, however. And that is something I am finding very enjoyable.
That is part of the fun of skirmish games. It's much easier to make a great setup with terrain and several different forces, or collect forces for a number of different games..
Herzlos wrote: It's only really in 40K/WHFB in the last decade that it became normal to only have a single army.
I've got more than 1 army for everything else (except X-Wing, but it didn't make sense to collect both when there were only 2 and my gaming buddy had the other one).
Variety is good though, but again, that is not something that is in any way special about AoS.
Don't think I ever said it was unique to AoS. Do we need to start adding disclaimer tags again when we make positive comments about AoS?
In direct comparison with WHFB 8th it is much much easier to collect multiple small armies, however. And that is something I am finding very enjoyable.
in direct comparison its pretty much the same. 2 core and a leader for small fights. as for disclaimer, when typing there is no real way to tell if someone is being rude, funny, etc.. so wouldnt worry too much about that. There are folks who's posts make me think "yeah what an a-hole" and am sure folks think the same of me, though likely meeting any of them in person would probably get along great.
I wouldn't say 2 core and a hero/Lord is "pretty much the same", I have 2 high elf heroes in my army. Impossible in 8th. I have 3 dwarf units (no heroes) - again impossible in 8th. There's a big difference between adding 1 unit and 3, especially when you are further restricted by those 3 being 2 core and a hero/Lord.
I've seen the sentiment all over the place and it's mine too that the structure of AoS has really inspired the hobbyist inside of me. I'm constantly thinking of new war bands, combinations, etc. I don't feel forced to paint more of a unit if I don't want to or buy any models I don't like or build my army up to any certain size.
Back in the day, if I collected Skaven but liked a Beastmen unit, I'd think, well maybe when I've bought and painted another 1,000 points of Skaven I'll be able to buy that Beastmen unit and it won't be a waste of money...and then I'll need to buy 1900 more points of that army to not make it a waste of money as well.
Bottle wrote: I wouldn't say 2 core and a hero/Lord is "pretty much the same", I have 2 high elf heroes in my army. Impossible in 8th. I have 3 dwarf units (no heroes) - again impossible in 8th. There's a big difference between adding 1 unit and 3, especially when you are further restricted by those 3 being 2 core and a hero/Lord.
from what I took from what you said, yes that is a legit small army for 8th, it is perfectly possible to build multiple small armies for each faction. your 2 high elf heroes are legal in 8th, but again its a battle game so it does require troops. All of my AoS armies were in fact nothing more than 8th armies used for AoS.
Sorry, I was posting on an iPhone before and wasn't able to elaborate fully. This is my Empire army in context. In 8th I couldn't add two High Elf heroes to it without adding two core units too. Not only that but in vanilla 8th, those core units would have to have been 3x the points worth of the heroes combined (25% max for heroes/lords).
These were all restrictions that very much discouraged adding a random couple of models from another faction into an existing army. To swing it back round to what Jono was talking about, this is GW removing the "bottom of the pyramid", as he put it.
And I think GW have been very successful with that implementation in AoS. [Disclaimer] not saying that AoS is unique in that regard, but in comparison with WHFB 8th it is a lot different. You can see it here on the forums and in your local game shops with all the quirky and cool themes and combinations people are now coming up with.
The whole time I played 8th I never game across a single player's force which consisted of multiple factions.
Bottle wrote: Sorry, I was posting on an iPhone before and wasn't able to elaborate fully. This is my Empire army in context. In 8th I couldn't add two High Elf heroes to it without adding two core units too. Not only that but in vanilla 8th, those core units would have to have been 3x the points worth of the heroes combined (25% max for heroes/lords).
These were all restrictions that very much discouraged adding a random couple of models from another faction into an existing army. To swing it back round to what Jono was talking about, this is GW removing the "bottom of the pyramid", as he put it.
And I think GW have been very successful with that implementation in AoS. [Disclaimer] not saying that AoS is unique in that regard, but in comparison with WHFB 8th it is a lot different. You can see it here on the forums and in your local game shops with all the quirky and cool themes and combinations people are now coming up with.
The whole time I played 8th I never game across a single player's force which consisted of multiple factions.
I-Phone?! some peoples kids!! but ok, yeah I see where you are coming from there.
Personally, I hate the fact that you can make armies out of whatever you want now.
If I looked across the table at some mish mash army made up of skaven, tomb kings and high elves I think i would just forfeit the game.
It blows my mind that people don't want restrictions for force organization. Armies should look like armies with tonnes of troops and some nice large centrepieces thrown in for flavour. Not just bring "whatever".
Chalk this up to yet another thing I absolutely hate about AOS.
Having some kind of alliance system is one thing, but even that should have restrictions.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Personally, I hate the fact that you can make armies out of whatever you want now.
If I looked across the table at some mish mash army made up of skaven, tomb kings and high elves I think i would just forfeit the game.
It blows my mind that people don't want restrictions for force organization. Armies should look like armies with tonnes of troops and some nice large centrepieces thrown in for flavour. Not just bring "whatever".
Chalk this up to yet another thing I absolutely hate about AOS.
Having some kind of alliance system is one thing, but even that should have restrictions.
Something like they had in the "Generals Compendium" ?
Brutus_Apex wrote: Personally, I hate the fact that you can make armies out of whatever you want now.
If I looked across the table at some mish mash army made up of skaven, tomb kings and high elves I think i would just forfeit the game.
But that is not the point - the freeing up of restrictions allows you to make characterful armies with a free range of choice. It is _not_ supposed to be used to create a mish-mash...
Brutus_Apex wrote: Personally, I hate the fact that you can make armies out of whatever you want now.
If I looked across the table at some mish mash army made up of skaven, tomb kings and high elves I think i would just forfeit the game.
But that is not the point - the freeing up of restrictions allows you to make characterful armies with a free range of choice. It is _not_ supposed to be used to create a mish-mash...
Then use the rules to allow for fluffy, characterful armies instead of throwing the rules out the window. I remember the 5th ed 40k Imperial Guard codex as a good example of this. Within the rules there was the options to make legal armies of conscripted masses, smaller numbers of veterans, mechanized infantry all in transports, tank regiments, even airborn regiments. It gave you so many options for different, fluffy, armies but it came at a time when 40k had a lot more restrictions than it does now.
*Edit*
Oh, I think 5th was the one that added Commisar lords as HQs. I think before it you did once have the option for Guant as a special character, I'm not sure when they removed him but between commisar lords and vets with camo cloaks you could recreate the Tanith well with the 5th ed book.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Personally, I hate the fact that you can make armies out of whatever you want now.
If I looked across the table at some mish mash army made up of skaven, tomb kings and high elves I think i would just forfeit the game.
But that is not the point - the freeing up of restrictions allows you to make characterful armies with a free range of choice. It is _not_ supposed to be used to create a mish-mash...
Don't destroy my dream!
I've just written up two great scenarios.
In one, a Grand Alliance of the High Elves, Orks and Dwarves lays siege to the Fyre Slayers' stronghold of Fort Nnoxx, in order to recover the stores of Ur-gold needed to restabilise the Realms' economy.
The other is a bandit scenario. A motley crew of Seraphon, Vampires and Treekin ambush an Ogre convoy for supplies. Unknown to the bandits, the Ogres' cargo is mostly live halflings intended for the pot. Unknown to the Ogres, the halflings are in fact an elite special forces combat team with the mission to let themselves be taken to the Ogres' hidden camp, and attack it from the inside.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Personally, I hate the fact that you can make armies out of whatever you want now.
If I looked across the table at some mish mash army made up of skaven, tomb kings and high elves I think i would just forfeit the game.
But that is not the point - the freeing up of restrictions allows you to make characterful armies with a free range of choice. It is _not_ supposed to be used to create a mish-mash...
I'd say it is, if that's what people want to play. I am sure there are local metas that look like an explosion in Harryhausen's workshop where Cygors line up alongside mutaliths and arachnorok spiders against Bastiladons and Terrorgheists and Dragons, and if it fits on a 40mm base it never gets used.
Similarly there will be metas where that freedom is expressed on the desire to collect an army platoon to an exacting standard where squads are regimented etc.
So what?
The rules encourage you to take same faction forces as most of the synergy is keyword based.
If you're judging balance by eye, then it doesn't matter what they take.
If the selection of their army offends some sensibility you have toward 'the done thing', then talk to them after, or get over yourself, or agree you want different things from your games.
What AoS has done is officially validated gaming with *any* collection style. Use what you want, but most importantly from GW's point of view, *buy* what you want.
I think a big fight between all the big monsters might be rather good fun.
Or maybe monsters on one side and hordes of pleb troops on the other. Something like this: The Seraphons are beaming down several Stegadons with their Skink crews and support units, but a transporter malfunction leads to the Steggies going combat mad and failing to recognise their crews.
The monster player can move the Steggies and use their natural attacks, but can't use the shooting attacks by the crews.
The crews must try to shoot enemy Stegadons because if they hit their own it will turn on them.
But that is not the point - the freeing up of restrictions allows you to make characterful armies with a free range of choice. It is _not_ supposed to be used to create a mish-mash...
Regardless of whether it is the point or not, the reality of 'freeing up of restrictions' , all so frequently has precisely the opposite effect in terms of making jarring, miss mash armies that often have no basis in the fluff.
Games with 'Structure' (as opposed to no restrictions) can often be just as capable of making characterful armies and providing legitimate choice.
While its possible to have a mish mash of armies, since July I have never seen one of those one time yet. As such, I don't think its as big a deal as people like to make it out to be.
I think its more that people are so used to a standard default way of playing that prevented that that they are opposed to the idea that despite the likliness of it happening being very small they are still against it.
There were alliances in the WHFB 8th edition rulebook that a lot of people didn't even know about, and when you tried to use them for an event or a game it was always shot down as not being "official" but rather "optional".
Thats why things like the Generals Compendium, which are awesome by the way and I wish they'd do another one, don't really go very far. I know where I am when the GC came out I couldn't really use it because no one wanted to deviate from the core rulebook at all.
We did the borderlands campaign from the GC but that was about it, and trying to write campaign events using the grand alliance rules in the WHFB 8th rulebook met with the same type of resistance that liberals and conservatives reserve for each other.
40K of course combines points, army lists (i.e. the codexes) and allies and Unbound, so you can do nearly anything you want officially. That's part of the reason it has been declining in popularity. The game actually stops working properly when you can use allies to cover for the designed limitations of your own codex.
This would not be a problem in AoS, because apart from the lack of points, there is less difference between armies than in 40K.
Regardless of whether it is the point or not, the reality of 'freeing up of restrictions' , all so frequently has precisely the opposite effect in terms of making jarring, miss mash armies that often have no basis in the fluff.
Games with 'Structure' (as opposed to no restrictions) can often be just as capable of making characterful armies and providing legitimate choice.
In my store there's only one guy who's mixing everything. Only the strongest units from Order GA, with an ugly paint scheme too. Nobody likes playing against him. Thankfully the store is full of people who made fun themed armies with a real identity to it.
Kilkrazy wrote:The other is a bandit scenario. A motley crew of Seraphon, Vampires and Treekin ambush an Ogre convoy for supplies. Unknown to the bandits, the Ogres' cargo is mostly live halflings intended for the pot. Unknown to the Ogres, the halflings are in fact an elite special forces combat team with the mission to let themselves be taken to the Ogres' hidden camp, and attack it from the inside.
Exalt!
RoperPG wrote:The rules encourage you to take same faction forces as most of the synergy is keyword based. If you're judging balance by eye, then it doesn't matter what they take.
I hate ally systems in WHFB and W40K, any I've experienced have simply allowed players to fill imbalances built into their main army with Obviously Good Things from an allied force. It has been rare that I've played against an army using an allying mechanic to do something fluffy or interesting or whatever - though I've done it myself (added proper Ogres to my 7E Skaven) and seen other Counts As and Modeling First players do it, we are absolutely the odd gamers out. I think it was 6E or 7E that was notorious for people using the Dogs of War list to sub a cannon or two into literally ever tournament list that allowed it - I have distinct and painful memories of coming up against a VC list lead by a zombie dragon and sporting two allied great cannons. With fluffy skeleton crew!
That said, when AOS first dropped and it was clear you could take whatever you wanted, it seemed like the heavy synergy around keywords would curtail that somewhat. Though it occurs to me now, that the only way that that works is if there's a larger limit placed on the game - SDK, pool, wounds, models. Which in most cases is a thing, even for ya'll RAWers in the audience.
Which is to say that I don't really care how many factions you pull from for you army, that's your call on diluting your synergy options. I am much more interested in convincing you to use a balancing mechanic (SDK or SCGT please) when you play me. And thematically I prefer you stick to a single Grand Alliance - it's a bit disappointing when I see your Stormcast deploy a Necrosphinx or Stonehorn, "because the model looks cool." Cool story bro However even then, if you've paid for your Obviously Good Thing using using some kind of overall value system, then whatever. I like cool toys too.
Bottle wrote:You can see it here on the forums and in your local game shops with all the quirky and cool themes and combinations people are now coming up with.
Ehhhhhh I don't think I've seen these yet, online or especially in person. Last I played locally we had a handful of Stormcast, a couple Dwarfs, a couple Vampire Counts, a couple Daemons of Khorne (me included), and a Stormcast dude branching into Sylvaneth. And these weren't square-based WHFB refugees (though some of the stunties and deadites may have been recently rebased), so not just holdovers.
One of the reason I'm really, really holding out for a Stormcast model with the Wizard keyword (or at least the ability to unbind like a Wizard) is on a few occasions I've needed to wheel out a couple of battle wizards. I've only ever taken Celestial to try and maintain the theme... but I still felt dirty.
Details of the Organized Play program are sketchy, and I’m sure the full program will be rolled out over the next few months. But here are the broad brushstrokes of what was reported from the seminar:
•The Program will include Organized Play Systems for both Warhammer 40,000 and Age of Sigmar.
•There will be a “campaign system” for each game.
•Prize support is a part of the system.
•The system will engage players at the Store, FLGS, and Convention level.
and the big one….
•The Age of Sigmar campaign will include some type of “points” system!
This is HUGE NEWS! Games Workshop slowly but surely pulled out of the organized play scene over a handful of years roughly 5-6 years back leaving FLGSs and the entire tournament scene to fend for themselves. Their absence has been keenly felt in an industry with all other major manufacturers pushing forward full steam ahead on the Organized Play front. Privateer Press has a fantastic system up and running with new exciting annual league rules, unique prizes and evolving styles of play. FFG is charging in like a bull with organized play systems for all of their growing systems with lavish prize support (remember Massing at Sullust). Outfits like WizKids do the same with exclusive Organized Play models released each year.
There are a lot of directions GW can go in rolling out an Organized Play system, but it looks after years wandering in the desert that they are coming home – and with a points system for Age of Sigmar!
The new event pack for the doubles at Warhammwr World's quite interesting.
15 models a side, uses the martial strength rules again, but timetable also includes 15 minutes before each game go discuss forces with your opponent - including the option of adding more minis to one side or another of both sides agree...
I have to say that AOS seems like it could be fun if you played it with regular people (a given) and devised your own thematic scenarios and situations where not having points isn't a big deal. Something along the lines of old historical gaming where you could have unbalanced scenarios with specific victory conditions to balance it out.
Now this is interesting, and has me wondering if I should pick up a small dark elf or khornite warband. Only thing stopping me now is I don't want to go and paint 30 models to a good standard and have what I think is an army only to later be told I have a quarter of the points GW expects me to play with.
Wel, that and the fluff. But hey, I'm excited to see where this goes.
jonolikespie wrote: Now this is interesting, and has me wondering if I should pick up a small dark elf or khornite warband. Only thing stopping me now is I don't want to go and paint 30 models to a good standard and have what I think is an army only to later be told I have a quarter of the points GW expects me to play with.
Wel, that and the fluff. But hey, I'm excited to see where this goes.
I think you should be fine mate, no matter how many models GW try and show an army consisting of - there is a very real limit on how many models you can play with in AoS and complete the game in a reasonable time. The four page rules already state a 100 model game will take an entire evening to complete. If you want to finish games in 2 hours you are looking at 30-50 models. :-)
TheWaspinator wrote: Man, GW must have gotten a horrendous amount of negative feedback if they actually listen and make a points system.
Well or the new CEO is a man of reason - They are taking steps to rectify the years of mistakes they've done (specialist games returning, more boardgames, finally launching a 30k plastic range, etc.) as well as seeing what works for their competitors. I think they're finally realizing that they cannot just make cool models, if they don't support the scene for where you use them.
They are being run over by their new competitors in one scene; The competitive scene. If they want to keep the throne, I think they're starting to realize that they have to take this scene seriously.
I will watch with much anticipation and pray that they open their eyes. If they do, I will let out a cry of joy.
We all say that DakkaDakka is a minority opinion of all wargamers but it's clear that as many people loathe AoS as love it. Perhaps the sample on DakkaDakka is not unrepresentative of the wider wargame world. Perhaps AoS actually hasn't been too successful and that shows in sales, and maybe GW really think an official points system will help.
This would be a remarkable U turn not least because where does it leave everyone who likes AoS because it doesn't have points.
The implication is that the points system will be an expansion of some sort, which would mean no points as standard, with points is optional. Covers all bases, caters to everyone's tastes, fixes the PUG issue. Providing the lack of points is the only problem you have with it, obviously!
Lots of claims of backpedalling, but part of me is wondering if GW intentionally wanted to do things this way to see how balance-by-eye was a viable option. I think the evidence is that it certainly is for a number of people, but it hinders just as many if not more.
Also wondering if this will be a list of "Liberators cost X points for 5 + Y for each extra", or if it'll be a mechanism along the lines of " Multiply wounds by attacks and add bravery to get the model's points value".
Also wondering if this will be a list of "Liberators cost X points for 5 + Y for each extra", or if it'll be a mechanism along the lines of " Multiply wounds by attacks and add bravery to get the model's points value".
I am hoping something like the latter, and I am hoping it is very much divorced from the rest of AoS, perhaps with its own Battleplans and Time of War. Really don't want points to invade all AoS games
^^ That's what I mean about the possibility that bring in points will actually annoy as many people as it satisfies.
It's pretty obvious that if there is a points system it will have to consist basically of points values for each war scroll. It then makes good sense to publish revised war scrolls with the points values on them.
To create and sell two separate lines of books, one with points, one without, seems like a complicated and confusing way to do business.
It dosn't matter if they list points as an optional expansion, where I am it will be THE default and getting people off of that will be insanely impossible.
Thats good if the point system is actually reasonable, and quite horrible if its what GW typically does with points.
Also wondering if this will be a list of "Liberators cost X points for 5 + Y for each extra", or if it'll be a mechanism along the lines of " Multiply wounds by attacks and add bravery to get the model's points value".
I am hoping something like the latter, and I am hoping it is very much divorced from the rest of AoS, perhaps with its own Battleplans and Time of War. Really don't want points to invade all AoS games
I agree. It sounds to me more like a separate campaign/event/store document.
Kilkrazy wrote: We all say that DakkaDakka is a minority opinion of all wargamers but it's clear that as many people loathe AoS as love it. Perhaps the sample on DakkaDakka is not unrepresentative of the wider wargame world. Perhaps AoS actually hasn't been too successful and that shows in sales, and maybe GW really think an official points system will help.
They are also adding an organized play system to 40k. I think this is just a generalized move to be more inclusive of that play style, rather than a tacit admission that AoS was a failed experiment. Even then, I'd be surprised if GW embraced organized play to quite the extreme that a lot of people around here would like. I expect stuff like the Warhammer World tournament packets.
This would be a remarkable U turn not least because where does it leave everyone who likes AoS because it doesn't have points.
If it becomes like Warmachine, where the tournament skirmishes are all that anyone is willing to play, I'd be rather upset. But I don't think GW is committing the game itself to tournament play, just providing that option while continuing AoS in the direction it has been from the start.
It is only speculation on my part, based on the fact that WHFB and 40K went into obvious decline after GW stopped the "organised play" events they had been doing between the mid-1980s and the late 2000s.
Kilkrazy wrote: We all say that DakkaDakka is a minority opinion of all wargamers but it's clear that as many people loathe AoS as love it. Perhaps the sample on DakkaDakka is not unrepresentative of the wider wargame world. Perhaps AoS actually hasn't been too successful and that shows in sales, and maybe GW really think an official points system will help.
They are also adding an organized play system to 40k. I think this is just a generalized move to be more inclusive of that play style, rather than a tacit admission that AoS was a failed experiment. Even then, I'd be surprised if GW embraced organized play to quite the extreme that a lot of people around here would like. I expect stuff like the Warhammer World tournament packets.
This would be a remarkable U turn not least because where does it leave everyone who likes AoS because it doesn't have points.
If it becomes like Warmachine, where the tournament skirmishes are all that anyone is willing to play, I'd be rather upset. But I don't think GW is committing the game itself to tournament play, just providing that option while continuing AoS in the direction it has been from the start.
You hit on a great point I share WMH is a great game and I have fun but at home it was hard to get a non-tourney prep game and since I've been overseas the large group here naturally plays with a PP scenario. That's fine, and I don't care about points anyway, just having a good scrum, but to have a "try things out game" we had fun armies of Pigs or Gators but still with a scenario beyond assassination. So I can totally see your point. AoS shines with scenarios and I just want to keep trying more, not just one of the Clash Comps or other event scenarios. If it's optional finding that balance of still playing the game we enjoy might be tricky at times.
I went back playing AoS after being disgusted by it when it first hit because I missed playing fantasy but after trying to pick it up I just found that it wasn't for me. I think a point system could help but I think the fact that the ruleset is pathetic is a more pressing issue, being honest GW doesn't do points systems well, but they could have put some effort into writing decent rules
Kilkrazy wrote: It is only speculation on my part, based on the fact that WHFB and 40K went into obvious decline after GW stopped the "organised play" events they had been doing between the mid-1980s and the late 2000s.
I don't know. That could be a case of confirmation bias on your part. GW has made a LOT of mistakes in the last few years, like their absurd online store policy, continuous price hikes, or killing specialists games, which have made it more difficult for new players to find a way into the game, and for old players to continue to find and afford the game. There's also been a drastic uptick in competition due to 3D printers and Kickstarter (not to mention FFG's Star Wars miniature games). So if there is a drop in GW fandom, and I don't doubt there has been, I don't think you can just single out the lack of organized play and say, "There! That's the straw which broke the camel's back!"
In fact, if you look at the efforts they've made recently towards restoring faith, AoS being a simpler game to get into, attending trade shows, sales on their online store, start collecting boxes, restoring specialist games, new paint-and-play entry level products, even opening a facebook account to communicate with customers, GW has been making serious attempts at making up for past mistakes (fix the online policy). Organized play is just another one to add on to the list, and it wasn't even the first one. I'd also remind people not to put too much into this organized play effort because it won't be as extensive or all encompassing as they probably are expecting. The products themselves are still moving in a direction away from tournament level skirmishes.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is only speculation on my part, based on the fact that WHFB and 40K went into obvious decline after GW stopped the "organised play" events they had been doing between the mid-1980s and the late 2000s.
I don't know. That could be a case of confirmation bias on your part. GW has made a LOT of mistakes in the last few years, like their absurd online store policy, continuous price hikes, or killing specialists games, which have made it more difficult for new players to find a way into the game, and for old players to continue to find and afford the game. There's also been a drastic uptick in competition due to 3D printers and Kickstarter (not to mention FFG's Star Wars miniature games). So if there is a drop in GW fandom, and I don't doubt there has been, I don't think you can just single out the lack of organized play and say, "There! That's the straw which broke the camel's back!"
In fact, if you look at the efforts they've made recently towards restoring faith, AoS being a simpler game to get into, attending trade shows, sales on their online store, start collecting boxes, restoring specialist games, new paint-and-play entry level products, even opening a facebook account to communicate with customers, GW has been making serious attempts at making up for past mistakes (fix the online policy). Organized play is just another one to add on to the list, and it wasn't even the first one. I'd also remind people not to put too much into this organized play effort because it won't be as extensive or all encompassing as they probably are expecting. The products themselves are still moving in a direction away from tournament level skirmishes.
I'm not saying the decline of those games was caused only by lack of tournaments. I strongly believe that doubling the price of rulebooks was the worst mistake, and second was fething up all the rules. But I do think that the canning of tournaments played a part, and GW recognise that, and that is why they are bringing them back. (If the rumour is true.) It'as all part of the strategy to reverse many things they did in the past 10 years that were unpopular, which you note in your post.
I think going by the most recent WW event pack for AoS, the term 'non-competitive' is repeated so many times that I'm prepared to bet that points will not be retconned and will be separate to the main/default rules; GW know what sort of experience they want a game of AoS to be.
(Replies of "expensive" or "rubbish" need not apply...)
What I'm really hoping for is just a reasonably good (ie better than 40k) points system that just takes some of the eyeballing and guesswork out of coming up with a fun game.
I'm deeply uninterested in a WMH/X-Wing type scene (but I understand it sells well and LOTS of people like it), but I want reasonably balanced PUGging. I don't really know if it's possible to split the difference between hyper competitive meta-gaming and completely narrative playing-with-your-pals.
Basically, I think there's nothing wrong with narrative gaming, and there's nothing wrong with competitive gaming, but my experience of working at an FLGS where WM/H was big was that it just became the case that everyone was either practicing for a steamroller with deathclocks or just not playing. It's not anybody's fault - but with the internet we're all in touch with other gamers constantly, and bigger-than-local metas are things everyone's aware of. AoS seems to go too far in the other direction as it stands - trying to push casual play so much that there's no semblance of balance within the game.
All of that's leaving aside the death of the old world, but that's a separate issue. Still, if GW can get a somewhat balanced but still easy to play gaming scene going, I've got Lizardmen and Wood Elves ready to go for that - luckily for me I didn't multibase for Kings of War, I just have regiment trays for that, so I can play both.
Longstrider wrote: I don't really know if it's possible to split the difference between hyper competitive meta-gaming and completely narrative playing-with-your-pals.
It is, as long as points remain the optional rules.
Points are always optional if you agree to ignore them. The argument is that people on the whole don't agree to ignore chunks of official core rules, so once implemented, people always use them.
Perhaps GW could issue a massive spreadsheet of all the units in the war scrolls, with points values, and option sheets for scenarios, with points values.
The other option that I can see, is for GW to issue special scenario packs for tournaments and competition use, that would have specified army setups. This obviously removes the spontaneity of using whatever troops you like, but at least it doesn't make any points values available.
Longstrider wrote: I don't really know if it's possible to split the difference between hyper competitive meta-gaming and completely narrative playing-with-your-pals.
It is, as long as points remain the optional rules.
it was always a option to bring what ever you want and ignore all the rules for a fair game and put what ever you wanted on the board. But now if you want to play .... You kinda need to bring some models, lay some down and showcase your models til someone excepts if no one does go home.
Or if someone does then comes the is it fair or not talk.
Longstrider wrote: I don't really know if it's possible to split the difference between hyper competitive meta-gaming and completely narrative playing-with-your-pals.
It is, as long as points remain the optional rules.
it was always a option to bring what ever you want and ignore all the rules for a fair game and put what ever you wanted on the board. But now if you want to play .... You kinda need to bring some models, lay some down and showcase your models til someone excepts if no one does go home.
Or if someone does then comes the is it fair or not talk.
Nuh-uh. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the default mode for the game is what people expect to play. You make points the default, then playing the game the way GW appear to intend disappears.
Make the points rules optional, which it will be. Because this isn't GW introducing a points system full-stop, it's GW introducing a comp system for events/campaigns.
Looking at the various iterations of the WW event packs, I think it's far more likely the comp will be along those lines - nods at keywords, model and wound count with underdog bonuses in game.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps GW could issue a massive spreadsheet of all the units in the war scrolls, with points values, and option sheets for scenarios, with points values.
That just doesn't seem GW's style at all though. It'll be a product, a tangible thing. Which again makes me think we're more likely to be looking at a comp mechanic rather than the minutiae of points values.
Kilkrazy wrote: The other option that I can see, is for GW to issue special scenario packs for tournaments and competition use, that would have specified army setups. This obviously removes the spontaneity of using whatever troops you like, but at least it doesn't make any points values available.
I know at least where I am, optional or not, whatever rules GW pushes out for competitions and events are going to become the community default standard for any games period.
Nuh-uh. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the default mode for the game is what people expect to play. You make points the default, then playing the game the way GW appear to intend disappears.
That's basically the long and short of it. Games are ALWAYS an option (barring some sort of coercive behaviour), so saying it's optional to use one of the fan-made points in AoS now, or that it's an option not to play with points in 40k is true, but it's not particulary useful. I hope people can find themselves a way to play and some like-minded folks to play the ways they want to play, but that's far easier said than done.
It's too bad though - I've started to come around on the AoS fluff (though I maintain it was terribly dull to start with and still runs into the equivalent of bolter porn too often) and the game mechanics are fine for a fast playing light miniatures game (barring some quirks I really dislike, constantly being able to shoot being one). But I really don't want to extend an hour-long game to an hour+15 minutes when I've only got 2-3 hours on a given evening to play something, so PUGs are difficult to organise.
The thing is, from GW's point of view, the fact that there is so much pressure from customers and prospective customers for a points system, must be pushing them to do something. If GW got the idea they could double sales by releasing a points system, there would be one on sale the next month.
Well, that nips this in the bud. But with this and the Facebook page's endorsement of fan-made comps, I actually think we might see GW giving some of the community points systems and comps the "chapter approved" stamp and setting up organised play events that requires the organisers to choose one of the community comps as the balancing mechanic for the event.
DEpending on how much fath you put in naftka, it says that the points system is just a way of separating people in tournament standings and not the system akin to 40k/real fantasy
It sounds like the way that rowing races are balanced. To compete, you have to join British Rowing and get a licence. When you win a race, you get points on your licence. There are races at various levels of points, and you can't enter a race below your level. This in theory classifies weaker and stronger rowers so that they compete with people of their own standard.
This system might actually be rather fun. GW could publish a web site listing all the registered players and their points.
Yes, that would be fun. I've played similar style leagues with a computer game before. But it would require a comp or structure on the armies too as at the moment you can turn up with anything ranging from a raft to a speedboat.
I am quite hopefully that GW will start to support the community comps. I would love to play with SDK in my local GW :-)
Yeah I figure if anything It will be not so much "Points" as it is Army Structure which, in my opinion, would be more useful to have when creating rule packs for a tournament or a campaign.
I'm glad to hear that this is likely just points for standings and not putting points on the models. I would rather the community continue to use whatever fan comp they want to use, because I feel that our interests in maintaining balance are going to be vastly more than GWs, and I don't want to return to skewed points, must takes, and never takes any longer.
Well, that nips this in the bud. But with this and the Facebook page's endorsement of fan-made comps, I actually think we might see GW giving some of the community points systems and comps the "chapter approved" stamp and setting up organised play events that requires the organisers to choose one of the community comps as the balancing mechanic for the event.
Maybe this is even better.
Well I was briefly considering starting a lizardmen army when I heard they might be adding points. Until the game has far better balancing mechanics than it does right now, I'm not interested.
Well, that nips this in the bud. But with this and the Facebook page's endorsement of fan-made comps, I actually think we might see GW giving some of the community points systems and comps the "chapter approved" stamp and setting up organised play events that requires the organisers to choose one of the community comps as the balancing mechanic for the event.
Maybe this is even better.
Well I was briefly considering starting a lizardmen army when I heard they might be adding points. Until the game has far better balancing mechanics than it does right now, I'm not interested.
Well I was briefly considering starting a lizardmen army when I heard they might be adding points. Until the game has far better balancing mechanics than it does right now, I'm not interested.
IMO you won't see a better balancing mechanism than the community developed ones. I don't think GW can make the same amount of games that the fan developers do - they just don't have that number of people in the studio.
Before I spit out the following heresy I'd like to say that I like the game and want to see it go forward... That said, at the current moment of time and state of the game, I don't think that it even deserves a good balancing mechanism - the core rules of the game IMO don't need and allow the benefits that a good point structure will bring. It is a good starter game, it allows and encourages players to collect various models from different ranges, it is playable by the younger members of the miniatures hobby and easy to learn for their busy dads. I personally think that the addition of points would defeat the purpose of the game as envisioned by GW.
auticus wrote: I'm glad to hear that this is likely just points for standings and not putting points on the models. I would rather the community continue to use whatever fan comp they want to use, because I feel that our interests in maintaining balance are going to be vastly more than GWs, and I don't want to return to skewed points, must takes, and never takes any longer.
I'm just curious if there's a way to make a points system that's close enough to let relaxed PUGs be fine without necessarily getting into must takes and never takes. I mean, the answer may just be no - at least for anything big or intricate. It works for things like some historicals where the range of statistics and special rules is fairly low, or the emphasis is on tactical decisions rather than stacking modifiers, and Kings of War (if you like it; if not tthat's fine) is perhaps more like Hail Caesar or Impetus that way.
I think in some ways Azyr comp aims at that, so that might be what I direct my efforts towards getting some people to try it with.
auticus wrote: I'm glad to hear that this is likely just points for standings and not putting points on the models. I would rather the community continue to use whatever fan comp they want to use, because I feel that our interests in maintaining balance are going to be vastly more than GWs, and I don't want to return to skewed points, must takes, and never takes any longer.
I'm just curious if there's a way to make a points system that's close enough to let relaxed PUGs be fine without necessarily getting into must takes and never takes. I mean, the answer may just be no - at least for anything big or intricate. It works for things like some historicals where the range of statistics and special rules is fairly low, or the emphasis is on tactical decisions rather than stacking modifiers, and Kings of War (if you like it; if not tthat's fine) is perhaps more like Hail Caesar or Impetus that way.
I think in some ways Azyr comp aims at that, so that might be what I direct my efforts towards getting some people to try it with.
Azyr was written with Azyr Empires in mind but yes the idea behind Azyr Comp is to be able to play Pick up Games and now roughly how the two armies are stacked against each other. Its not a precision system and was never meant to be a precision system (because I strongly feel that when you are playing a multitude of scenarios like I enjoy doing, that precision points don't work and that leads us to playing the same scenario over and over again (pitched battle anyone?)
The only never takes I'm seeing is that no one takes chaffe anymore. Not because they aren't good enough but because no one wants to paint and buy that many models. Everyone has moved strongly toward the small elite armies. Thats just a local observation though so it is only good as that.
Herzlos wrote: How can you rank players at events when it's a nice guy competition and the goal seems to be to not win?
Doesn't that segregate the nicer players rather than forming tiers of ability?
It's a shame, something to help pick up games would really gain them some traction
Judging by the most recent WW event pack, your ranking score is based on number of votes you got for being favourite opponent multiplied by number of in-game objectives you score.
Azyr was written with Azyr Empires in mind but yes the idea behind Azyr Comp is to be able to play Pick up Games and now roughly how the two armies are stacked against each other. Its not a precision system and was never meant to be a precision system (because I strongly feel that when you are playing a multitude of scenarios like I enjoy doing, that precision points don't work and that leads us to playing the same scenario over and over again (pitched battle anyone?)
The only never takes I'm seeing is that no one takes chaffe anymore. Not because they aren't good enough but because no one wants to paint and buy that many models. Everyone has moved strongly toward the small elite armies. Thats just a local observation though so it is only good as that.
Yeah, the more I think about it the more Azyr seems to do what I want out of a balancing mechanism. Going to see if I can get a couple of friends to try it.
Azyr was written with Azyr Empires in mind but yes the idea behind Azyr Comp is to be able to play Pick up Games and now roughly how the two armies are stacked against each other. Its not a precision system and was never meant to be a precision system (because I strongly feel that when you are playing a multitude of scenarios like I enjoy doing, that precision points don't work and that leads us to playing the same scenario over and over again (pitched battle anyone?)
The only never takes I'm seeing is that no one takes chaffe anymore. Not because they aren't good enough but because no one wants to paint and buy that many models. Everyone has moved strongly toward the small elite armies. Thats just a local observation though so it is only good as that.
Yeah, the more I think about it the more Azyr seems to do what I want out of a balancing mechanism. Going to see if I can get a couple of friends to try it.
Most comps favor elite units, because they under-account for how many models get to attack. Often cheaper units get only a small fraction of the overall attacks available to the models, while elite units don't have this issue.
It will however save the fantasy tournament scene. GW claims 20% of its customers are gamers only, while 30% are collectors and gamers and 50% of them are just collectors. Making a game that alienates 20% of your target audience is stupid as hell and it shows, major fantasy events had attendance drop to upwards of 95%.
Even worse, when that rumour of AoS getting points popped up people were genuinely excited and GW fething laughs in their face publically.
It will however save the fantasy tournament scene. GW claims 20% of its customers are gamers only, while 30% are collectors and gamers and 50% of them are just collectors. Making a game that alienates 20% of your target audience is stupid as hell and it shows, major fantasy events had attendance drop to upwards of 95%.
Even worse, when that rumour of AoS getting points popped up people were genuinely excited and GW fething laughs in their face publically.
Which tournament scene? Speaking for Europe, WHFB is dead. KoW and 9th have taken over.
It will however save the fantasy tournament scene. GW claims 20% of its customers are gamers only, while 30% are collectors and gamers and 50% of them are just collectors. Making a game that alienates 20% of your target audience is stupid as hell and it shows, major fantasy events had attendance drop to upwards of 95%.
Even worse, when that rumour of AoS getting points popped up people were genuinely excited and GW fething laughs in their face publically.
Which tournament scene? Speaking for Europe, WHFB is dead. KoW and 9th have taken over.
That's what Im getting at, fantasy did have a decent tournament scene prior to AoS. Now that scene is near extinct or moved over to KoW.
If GW do make a points system, it had better be bloody good. A lot of the players they want to get back will have tried other games now, and they are not going be won back with lazy rules design. Once you leave the GW clubhouse, it's harder to think about going back in.
That's putting some funny pictures in my head.
Even rules debates we've had at any of our gaming clubs dispute a rule we don't use anyway, like measuring from the the model--we know to measure from the base. Or cap summoning, or doing away with sudden death victory conditions.
However even then, if you've paid for your Obviously Good Thing using using some kind of overall value system, then whatever. I like cool toys too.
