Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The value of an item is all relative.
Can you find cheaper hardcover books that are roughly the same size?
Yes, but the value of this book is in the entertainment. Can you find other chaeper game systems to play?
Yes, but these rules are way better and it's easy to find someone to play with.

It's roughly the price of five trips to the movies (w/drink and popcorn). I think I will get more entertainment out of this book over the next five years before the next rule set comes out.

And the book is gorgeous!

I knew I wanted to buy it when I found myself having fun playing fantasy for the first time, when me and a friend played a demo game with the store copy.

Hi again.
Inquisitor_Syphonious.
If you prefer GW models over all others, fair enough, asthetics is purley subjective.You choose pay more to get the models you like .
If you like the GW background better than other versions of the standard 'fantasy setting' fair enough , again it subjective asthetics.

If you already have a collection of minatures you like , and lots of books with GW background in.(Unless the background has changed dramaticaly since 7th ed?)

The only thing 8th ed brings to the experiance is a different version of the WHFB rules.
If the WHFB rule book is half rules and half fluff.(As others have reported.)
Then its only good value if you want both.
Alot of gamers ONLY want new rules.They may baulk at paying £25 to £30 for 'fluffy padding'they dont want /need?

This is where rule sets that ONLY contain rules MAY seem better value.(Along with seperate books that contain the rich and detailed background, IF you want this sort of thing).

You can use GW minatures and background with other rule sets.(They dont automaticaly self destruct .)

So far its taken GW 25 years to 'develop' a game that still has no provable level of balance.

As the army books will be released ad hoc over the next 5 to 6 years, the developers and thier atitudes will change in this time.
And as the balance of Army Books is soley determined by the opinion of the dev team at that time after 'limited' playtesting.(And the influence of corperate marketing.)
This edition will probably suffer the similar fate of imballance in the Army Books as previous edition did.

I am not sugesting game ballance above all else.
But a game that has provable levels of balance , is far more useable by a wider range of gamers.
Currently the GW core games only work well if you play in a similar play style to the GW dev team.

If you have a provable method of determining PV, (Like AoA does.It was 8 years in development with its players doing the playtesting !)
Its easier to develop MORE diverse armies and more of them over a shorter period of time.
(AoA has 23 'ballance proven' fantasy and historical lists, compared to WHFBs dozen unproven lists.)

Because all that required is synergistic anomalies to be identified and accomodated by playtesting .

Not the relevent worth of every unit vs every other unit across all armies, averaged out at the army level , then reverse engineered in to individual model PV costings. (This is an impossible task, no wonder the devs struggle with balance issues.)

GW plc pushed for more competative focused games to appeal to the 'competative nature ' of thier 'imaginary prime demographic.' All that resulted was reduction of narrative and player options.

Now the dev team appear to have gone back to narrative focused development .(Something they are more comforatble with.)
And so the imbalance in WHFB Armies may be played down-disgused by the heavier narrative focus.

In 6 years time when WHFB 9th ed is 'only £100' and 'totaly worth it for the 400 full colour pages of art work and background'(and the 100 pages of rules .)

AoA gamers will still be using the same AoA rules , but with even MORE ballanced Army lists to choose from.And maybe more ex WHFB players might switch to alternative rule sets?


TTFN
lanrak.

Hi Lanrak - nice to see someone promoting the benefits of AoA on dakka

My personal take on this whole thread is this - I'm not buying 8th ed purely on how much it costs. I'll probably continue to buy the odd thing from GW (expanding my Eldar, mostly) but as far as I'm concerned, WHFB is no longer an option for me.

And like the OP said, I can always play a different edition of the rules. So I'm not trying to stop people from playing or buying 8th ed at all - people only work to spend the money they earn on the things they want. Some people want 8th ed, some don't.

No reason to get angry about it

Lanrak wrote:So far its taken GW 25 years to 'develop' a game that still has no provable level of balance.

It's a game with complexity and range, which although part of the attraction, makes it difficult to establish balance. Balance is only key to tournament play which contrary to what some people believe is not the be all and end all of the hobby.

Ive never taken competitive WFB seriously anyway.. Its always been so bad heh. Long as the game is fun then the new edition is a win to me

Play with people who appreciate enjoy themselves and you'll have a good time

Flashman wrote:Balance is only key to tournament play which contrary to what some people believe is not the be all and end all of the hobby.

Why isn't fair game play a key ingredient to any good game, whether it's within a tournament or not?

I will point 1 thing out: I have no intention of buying the new rule book. I have every intention of at least waiting for the small rule book in the starter set.

The starter set will likely be around $85-100. But at least for that I get the additional models for 2 armies I already play in Skaven and High Elves, and the rules book. I get some dice and templates, which I have plenty of.

$70+ dollars? Not going to bother for just the unwieldy book. 85-100? sure, sounds better. If they make their starter set over $100 they should made it impossible for them to sell. There goal is to start players. NO ONE will pay $100+ dollars to start a hobby. They will ask the people in the shop that play "are there other game systems" they will find out about a cheap one, and off they go out of the shop empty handed. GW has to keep the price down to sell their product on the starter set.

Do the math: $70+ rulebook for existing players? Eh not horrible if you already have the models. $85 for a starter set that has $70 rulebook+models, better. If it eclipses $100 you know what someone's going to notice? That for $85 they can start Warmachine/ Hordes with a starter set and the full rules.

Neconilis wrote:

Flashman wrote:Balance is only key to tournament play which contrary to what some people believe is not the be all and end all of the hobby.

Why isn't fair game play a key ingredient to any good game, whether it's within a tournament or not?

Space Hulk is a good example. The game is heavily stacked in favour of the Genestealers, so it's all the more satisfying when you pull off a win as the Blood Angels. It's still fun to play as the marines even though you're probably going to lose.

As for Fantasy, yes some armies may win more than others, but so long as you get a good bit of story to the game, it doesn't really matter who wins or loses. You're playing to have fun.

I sympathize with Lanrak. I have never played this AoA and never even heard of it until his post. This... I think is the barrier. People know about warhammer, these game systems are what is most readily available and in the eyes of gamers along with a few others. A lot of people are competitive, and tourney oriented, so they feel that they need to stay focused on what "everyone else" plays know matter how illogical it seems.

I wish GW had balanced armies and balanced systems, but unfortunately it seems that they think there is no money to made with balanced army books and systems.(I realize that the balance is better, but they are a long way off from "real" balance)

A lot of people think GW doesn't know what they are doing, but I think they know exactly what they are doing in introducing codex creep so that we are left wanting to buy a new edition because "it plays better" than the previous edition.


GG

I don't think you can balance a game with subjective rules. Inevitably one guy will be playing at lest one unit that "he likes" against a guy who could care less what the units look like and only how the numbers crunch. The more I play stuff the more I see varying levels of power gamers. Some people really start to ruin games which are meant to have flavor by not just crunching the numbers time and again but by outright trying to crash the system. On the opposite some create such extreme artificial rules based on flavor/past editions/subjectivity that they are a pain to play as well. GW games are designed to be treated like DnD, played with a group of friends. The attempts at them becoming "competitive" have come from complaining customers more than anything. If you want to play a competitive game, try one, cuz GW games aren't those.

Hi again.
Narrative games are just as valid as games geared to more competative play.

However ,MOST games that are developed for narrative co-operative play tend to make in more obvious than WHFB-40k do.
(Eg they dont use PV, and push senarios a lot more !)

Most rules that are developed for balanced competative play do have more focus on 'clarity and brevity' , as Mr Priestley would put it.
If the game developers totaly understand how every aspect of the game impacts on every other.
They can use a concistant method for determining in game value.(PV based on in game ability.)
Then all that playtesting has to achive is to determine 'synergistic anomolies'.(Make sure its fun to play/play against. )

Now a lot of people say that game ballance only affects competative gamers.
However, if the ballance is too 'elastic' it can result in match ups that are just not much fun to play for both players...sound familiar folks?

If a game has a provable level of balance.(Eg a concistant method that matches in game results.)
Then ANY type of gamer can use the rules to have fun.
Narrative gamers are NOT at a disadvantage from thier more competative freinds.As everthing is costed apropriatley!
However , to maximise the effectivness of units you have to find the optimum use for them.(Become a 'better general' .)

You can have unballanced narrative match ups , and add loads of extra fun rules .
(Any one can come up with fun stuff, if you are not worried about ballance!)

And you can play a competative game , with confidence KNOWING its your skill at playing, NOT your list that resultst in victory.

The real hinderance to game ballance at GW towers is the 'we are in the buisness of selling minatures' attitude.IMO.
Which enforces too much focus on the individual minatures, and list building .

Play testing at the Army Level, then reverse engineering the results to get individual minature/equipment PV, is likley to be inacurate and irreleveant.
As it misses out the UNIT level where ALL in game interactions take place.
IF you are only costing based on play testing , you should conduct PV allocation at the level of interaction for the most accurate results.

Any way I digress.

The main point I wanted to make is, have alook at the alternative available.(Lots of rules can be used with your exsiting minatures.)
They may suit your more than WHFB 8th ed.


It is YOUR hobby, YOU pay for it, so YOU decide ...

TTFN
Lanrak.