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.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
They are activity trying to balance, they just sent a full year on how to balance all the new battletomes....

AoS for any newer battletome (the past year) is actively balance with each other. Why go back and balance old armies mechanics if they are working on getting new books for them? That just slows down the process.

Go watch their Podcast 2nd episode, they outline how they are now balancing battletomes.

GW has for 20 odd years SAID they are trying to balance. Their actions however for 20 odd years have been opposed to what they say.

If by the end of the year all of the armies or a vast majority of armies have up to date books that will go miles in balancing the game. However, strictly speaking right now, they say a whole lot of things but never actually really produce in action.

Eh, some of the older books do just fine, and are even stronger than some newer ones. What I see is the newer ones have (barring some exceptions) more options, better internal balance, and less gimmicky gameplay.

To be clear I see 2.0 and onward as new tomes, with pre-2.0 but post KO as middle tomes, and before that as old ones.

Amishprn86 wrote:They are activity trying to balance, they just sent a full year on how to balance all the new battletomes....

AoS for any newer battletome (the past year) is actively balance with each other. Why go back and balance old armies mechanics if they are working on getting new books for them? That just slows down the process.

Go watch their Podcast 2nd episode, they outline how they are now balancing battletomes.

They could also have armies balanced in the first place. Maybe even have rules in one place instead of having players buy a new book every time they "try to balance".

It's possible. Infinity has an online official list builder that they update, Kings of War army lists are in the rulebook plus a supplement (with tweaks and an annual set of scenarios in an affordable supplements) and Malifaux sells a rules cards with the miniatures and releases free errata to update them.

So why does GW keep releasing expensive books for each army and then have to FAQ the feth out of it till you have to buy a corrected version or corrections?

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
Nice to have game discussions without having so much salt.

Not at the exclusion of censorship or not having a different opinion than the owner of the site. So basically it's a false site where you can't say what you dislike about it. While we may not need Mc Donald's load of salt, we also don't need Mountian Dew's load of sugar.

Funny how lots of people complain about China doing this, but it's ok when American and British companies do this. One sided views does not make a product look good. You will get past the sugar real fast enough to know it doesn't really taste that well. At least with salt, you know it can be bad but taste good as well.

I like having a new ghb every year. It isn't expensive and they have all included a wealth of content other than the point costs.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Amishprn86 wrote:They are activity trying to balance, they just sent a full year on how to balance all the new battletomes....

AoS for any newer battletome (the past year) is actively balance with each other. Why go back and balance old armies mechanics if they are working on getting new books for them? That just slows down the process.

Go watch their Podcast 2nd episode, they outline how they are now balancing battletomes.

They could also have armies balanced in the first place. Maybe even have rules in one place instead of having players buy a new book every time they "try to balance".

It's possible. Infinity has an online official list builder that they update, Kings of War army lists are in the rulebook plus a supplement (with tweaks and an annual set of scenarios in an affordable supplements) and Malifaux sells a rules cards with the miniatures and releases free errata to update them.

So why does GW keep releasing expensive books for each army and then have to FAQ the feth out of it till you have to buy a corrected version or corrections?

Because it's Games Workshop and they know people will still buy them no matter what, because if they don't, the community will move on without them.

Meanwhile those other games actually need to build and maintain a fanbase, because most players haven't spent years and hundreds/thousands of pounds investing into them. As such, they have to actually give a damn about the balance and not try to rip people off as best they can.

Why would GW care about balance too much? They have places like TGA, where the pages could be kept together by raw sewage and they'd praise them for it. If they didn't, GW might not slide so many... ahem, 'community rewards' their way.

There is certainly some truth in the above. I know my investment into the game stems from my having spent thousands of dollars and thousands of man hours on painting that I don't want to just chuck models I've had for 20 years and I want to still be able to use them.

I will also say that the game was really not anywhere near balanced in 1999 either (though 2000's ravening hordes were the golden period of balance and that lasted for a couple years before army book creep renewed).

My armies were tournament collections back in the day and were in fact the busted hotness. I did indeed chase meta around back then. I reformed from that around 2007 when I saw the churn and burn of new players coming in, seeing their armies being tore up because mathematically they were crap, and then saying "feth this" and walking out. I didn't want to see people mass leaving any longer.

So, i can get on the website, but since it was down i can not post, quote, like, etc.. so it seems it might still be a bit buggy.

Arbitrator wrote:Because it's Games Workshop and they know people will still buy them no matter what, because if they don't, the community will move on without them.

Meanwhile those other games actually need to build and maintain a fanbase, because most players haven't spent years and hundreds/thousands of pounds investing into them. As such, they have to actually give a damn about the balance and not try to rip people off as best they can.

Why would GW care about balance too much? They have places like TGA, where the pages could be kept together by raw sewage and they'd praise them for it. If they didn't, GW might not slide so many... ahem, 'community rewards' their way.

This guy gets it.

auticus wrote:There is certainly some truth in the above. I know my investment into the game stems from my having spent thousands of dollars and thousands of man hours on painting that I don't want to just chuck models I've had for 20 years and I want to still be able to use them.

I will also say that the game was really not anywhere near balanced in 1999 either (though 2000's ravening hordes were the golden period of balance and that lasted for a couple years before army book creep renewed).

My armies were tournament collections back in the day and were in fact the busted hotness. I did indeed chase meta around back then. I reformed from that around 2007 when I saw the churn and burn of new players coming in, seeing their armies being tore up because mathematically they were crap, and then saying "feth this" and walking out. I didn't want to see people mass leaving any longer.

You can use your dear fantasy models for Kings of War and 40k models to play Grimdark Future instead.
I sold my ~3000 point of daemons for enough to get a 50ss (the standard game size) Malifaux crew AND a 300 point (standard game size too) Infinity collection.

Just saying.

Yeah I do some kings of war, but in my region there are like 2-3 guys that play it. So its hard getting games in.

I can confirm that TGA tends to be overly positive to the point of being an echo chamber. I refer to it as the "unofficial GW Forum" since the designers frequent it, Ben Curry is friends with Ben Johnson (AOS designer) and they play in the same club and it's pretty much an extension of the GW design studio in its intent and design.

He (Curry) once PM'd me personally to ask that I tone down negativity as it came off that I "hated the game and hated GW" and that's not what they wanted to be posted on their forum. This from saying how I felt there was a lot of problems with the game and how GW was doing balance was rather poor IMHO. I mostly stopped posting after that as it was clear that they were pushing an agenda and didn't want to see criticism of the game or the designers but just the idea that everything was perfect and GW was great. Shortly after he even posted a big post saying, in effect, we should all be thankful to GW for making such a great game and enabling the forum to exist (it was even called something like "Staying positive and remembering why we have TGA"). It stunk of propaganda and cult mentality.

It's a good resource forum to be sure, but I don't like the enforced "company line" bullgak they have there. Having your head in the sand means you just ignore any issues.

I can't speak to auticus' comments about Curry wanting to make AOS an esport, as I don't follow him on twitter and haven't seen words to that effect on the forum or on his podcast when he was doing it. He was overly positive about AOS, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that and he seems like a nice "bloke" overall.

However, I have a "reputation" of "whining" in my social circles because I don't find many things amazing in the game and criticize GW a lot having been exposed to non-GW games for a while. So clearly I am a toxic person who hates the game because I don't think it's all sunshine and rainbows.

Right now its two steps being taken.

The first is that there is a push to have a world championship at warhammer world composed of winners of all the majors or something like that. Kings of War does something like this now as well. If you win a major and your army is mostly mantic models you get the invite to compete for the world title.

The second is once there is a world championship and the whole thing is streamed that there start being endorsements and sponsors tapped in via advertisements on the live stream, with the winners receiving a hefty financial boon.

This is just from following the twitterverse and listening to a few podcasts that have been directed my way on the subject matter over the past eight months or so.

I can't read ben's twitter because when he booted me from TGA he also blocked me from his twitter feed (and he and I have never spoken so I can only imagine it was because he didn't want to hear what I had to say on twitter either even though it wasn't directly targeted at him)

And I posted on TGA and post on twitter identical to how I post on here. Negative posters, or posters that post complaints about the system, directly harm the endorsement machine when its in its infancy, because no one wants endorsers to see people complaining about the game. If its not seen in an ultra positive light, that hurts its chances of having actual financial street-cred as something to back because organizations willing to endorse players are going to be doing so to earn back money from advertisement revenue on the live streams. Once its too big to fail, like professional sports, then I don't think negative posters matter as much. Kind of like how people gripe that the NFL is too soft now, but they still make a ton of money anyway.

auticus wrote:
Its a great resource to have to be sure, though can get very echo chambery which is a drawback.

That's what happens when you ban anything that sounds remotely like criticism of the game or the company that makes it.