Switch Theme:

Has GW lost the ability/talent/innovation to create new games?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Stripped em down as a mish-mash of Warhammer, 40k, LotR bits and pieces for a easy access game then added on to them with tons of content and feedback which will continue far into the future to keep the game fresh and add more depth to it while having a stable core still open for beginners.

That's awesome in my book.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

 thekingofkings wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It sells more than Warhammer managed by all accounts?

This isn’t a ‘how very dare you not enjoy AoS’ thing. I’m just confused as to why you not enjoying a given game means it’s not innovative?


Its more that it is not innovation, all the mechanics pre-existed in either warhammer or 40k already, AoS merely stripped them down to the most base it could.


I think that limiting the idea of innovation to new game mechanics is limiting, if only because very few game mechanics are clearly new.

You can argue that AOS simply recasts the Roll to hit/Roll to save mechanic that Warhammer has been using for 30+ years, dropping the roll to wound. Obviously changing from regimental blocks to skirmish squads is a big change, but nothing new. So yes, AOS doesn't have any completely fresh ideas in it.

So what? Innovation isn't just about new mechanics, it's also about how to combine them. both division of labor and the idea of progressive assembly existed, but I think that Ford was pretty innovative when he developed his assembly line so that low skilled workers could quickly assemble cars. Likewise, if you look at a game like bolt action, which is widely praised, I'm not sure which if it's mechanics, if any, is purely new. (Given how ideas work, i'd guess you could find a predeccesor to every mechanic somewhere.) Still, the way that those mechanics are combined to create a very compelling game experience really is innovative.

Finally, creating a new version of something successful is always dificult, because you want to keep old users and gain new ones. I think that the risks that GW have taken with their flag ship games was ambitious and creative, if not innovative by the strictest definition.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Polonius wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It sells more than Warhammer managed by all accounts?

This isn’t a ‘how very dare you not enjoy AoS’ thing. I’m just confused as to why you not enjoying a given game means it’s not innovative?


Its more that it is not innovation, all the mechanics pre-existed in either warhammer or 40k already, AoS merely stripped them down to the most base it could.


I think that limiting the idea of innovation to new game mechanics is limiting, if only because very few game mechanics are clearly new.

You can argue that AOS simply recasts the Roll to hit/Roll to save mechanic that Warhammer has been using for 30+ years, dropping the roll to wound. Obviously changing from regimental blocks to skirmish squads is a big change, but nothing new. So yes, AOS doesn't have any completely fresh ideas in it.

So what? Innovation isn't just about new mechanics, it's also about how to combine them. both division of labor and the idea of progressive assembly existed, but I think that Ford was pretty innovative when he developed his assembly line so that low skilled workers could quickly assemble cars. Likewise, if you look at a game like bolt action, which is widely praised, I'm not sure which if it's mechanics, if any, is purely new. (Given how ideas work, i'd guess you could find a predeccesor to every mechanic somewhere.) Still, the way that those mechanics are combined to create a very compelling game experience really is innovative.

Finally, creating a new version of something successful is always dificult, because you want to keep old users and gain new ones. I think that the risks that GW have taken with their flag ship games was ambitious and creative, if not innovative by the strictest definition.


I would give them "ambitious" but not so much on creative. AoS banked hard on the old lore. I would not call those 4 pages compelling game experience at all, this is a game that really needed its GHB to save it. GW gave me the impression that they really didn't care about AoS beyond "can it generate revenue" it was of similar quality to games like "carnage" very minimalist. There is also not a lot of attempt to keep the old players who were rank and file style players who loved a specific setting by offering them a completely different style of game and setting. That wouldnt be much different than offering bolt action players Star Wars Armada and then wondering why they are not all thrilled with it.
   
Made in ca
Master Sergeant





The title made me laugh because it implies GW has ever demonstrated talent or innovation in its game design. I mean we can go back to the ancient first generation GW games and they're still not altogether impressive works.

The thing GW has always excelled at is the marketability side of their products, and the hobby elements. The games themselves are rubbish.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 00:34:56


 
   
Made in us
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Frostgrave

Wayniac wrote:

Very few games work out of the box with "game-as-written", house ruling/adhoc has always been a part of wargaming since it first dawned. Also by this logic, isn't matched play itself a custom version of the game with imposed (perhaps not "self-imposed") limits on army construction? You seem to be implying that Open is badwrongfun because you can't use it "out of the box" but matched play isn't out of the box anyways.


I honestly can't name another game I've had to house rule to play. I may have misinterpreted some rules but I've never actually has to deviate in thesame way I've always done with 40k


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baron Klatz wrote:

It depends on why the new players are coming; because friends play? Because they found a gw store? Because they researched the hobby and decided it was the best?


Likely a mix of those and several other factors but the fact remains AoS and 40k 8th aren't just playerbases of stubborn fans. They're a big mix of gamers that love the IPs and the fun game systems.




Definitely. But none of those factors point to the game being any good. I'm not knocking it's popularity, but popularity and quality don't always go hand in hand. I loved Sharknado but it's objectively terrible. I love 40k but it's objectively terrible.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 07:24:23


 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Ventus wrote:
The title made me laugh because it implies GW has ever demonstrated talent or innovation in its game design. I mean we can go back to the ancient first generation GW games and they're still not altogether impressive works.

The thing GW has always excelled at is the marketability side of their products, and the hobby elements. The games themselves are rubbish.


Cough...Space...cough...Hulk...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baron Klatz wrote:
Stripped em down as a mish-mash of Warhammer, 40k, LotR bits and pieces for a easy access game then added on to them with tons of content and feedback which will continue far into the future to keep the game fresh and add more depth to it while having a stable core still open for beginners.

That's awesome in my book.


I don't the AOS lore is up to much IMO.

Yeah, the old Warhammer was a mish-mash of Renaissance Europe, Medieval France, and other fantasy elements tacked on for good measure, but it still had more depth to it than this current version.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 11:06:37


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in gb
Most Glorious Grey Seer






So you've read and digested the entirety of the AoS lore, yes?

Fed up for Scalpers? Why not join us? 
   
Made in gb
Screaming Shining Spear





 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So you've read and digested the entirety of the AoS lore, yes?


well I read a lot of Stormhringer books and played Warcraft a bit so I get the gist...

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So you've read and digested the entirety of the AoS lore, yes?


I've read enough to give me a working knowledge, but I freely admit I'm not an expert on it.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in gb
Stitch Counter






Rowlands Gill

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Ventus wrote:
The title made me laugh because it implies GW has ever demonstrated talent or innovation in its game design. I mean we can go back to the ancient first generation GW games and they're still not altogether impressive works.

The thing GW has always excelled at is the marketability side of their products, and the hobby elements. The games themselves are rubbish.


Cough...Space...cough...Hulk...


I'm sorry but I've got to raise my hand here. Gameplay wise Space Hulk is deficient. The Genestealers have very limited options and their player acts basically as a glorified AI. GW effectively acknowledged this when their suggested mode of play was to play 2 games, swapping sides to see who did best. Right there is an admission that playing one side *cough* Genestealers *cough* sucked.

I own the first re-release edition. I have played it a few times as I wanted to see what all the fuss was about as I believed there was so much player frothing about the game it must have been an event tantamount to the Second Coming. But after about 4 or 5 games, it has sat unloved in my loft. I played it with 3 different people in my gaming group and they all felt the same - playing Genestealers was boring as hell. The only person who did enjoy it was my son who actually wanted to play the Genestealers, but that was because as a kid he didn't understand the joy of tactics too well, and just running at the nearest model and trying to eat them seemed like fun. I enjoyed spending time with my son, but the game dragged.

Now, of course I am sure there are loads of people that love SH, and even enjoyed playing Genestealers and their opinions are valid. But I'm sorry, holding the game up as some exemplar of good game design doesn't hold water. As a one-player game versus AI maybe (I remember there used to be a little flash version of the game knocking about on the internet that was good for wasting a few minutes at work), but as a two-player game, not a chance. It does however prove the GW adage that it is all about the minis, not the rules.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/13 11:51:30


Cheers
Paul 
   
Made in us
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Frostgrave

Whfb had an accessibility to it that doesn't exist in AoS. Anyone with any exposure to fantasy tropes can choose army army and dive in.AoS requires a layer of translation, explanation and silly names to fight through
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Osbad wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Ventus wrote:
The title made me laugh because it implies GW has ever demonstrated talent or innovation in its game design. I mean we can go back to the ancient first generation GW games and they're still not altogether impressive works.

The thing GW has always excelled at is the marketability side of their products, and the hobby elements. The games themselves are rubbish.


Cough...Space...cough...Hulk...


I'm sorry but I've got to raise my hand here. Gameplay wise Space Hulk is deficient. The Genestealers have very limited options and their player acts basically as a glorified AI. GW effectively acknowledged this when their suggested mode of play was to play 2 games, swapping sides to see who did best. Right there is an admission that playing one side *cough* Genestealers *cough* sucked.

I own the first re-release edition. I have played it a few times as I wanted to see what all the fuss was about as I believed there was so much player frothing about the game it must have been an event tantamount to the Second Coming. But after about 4 or 5 games, it has sat unloved in my loft. I played it with 3 different people in my gaming group and they all felt the same - playing Genestealers was boring as hell. The only person who did enjoy it was my son who actually wanted to play the Genestealers, but that was because as a kid he didn't understand the joy of tactics too well, and just running at the nearest model and trying to eat them seemed like fun. I enjoyed spending time with my son, but the game dragged.

Now, of course I am sure there are loads of people that love SH, and even enjoyed playing Genestealers and their opinions are valid. But I'm sorry, holding the game up as some exemplar of good game design doesn't hold water. As a one-player game versus AI maybe (I remember there used to be a little flash version of the game knocking about on the internet that was good for wasting a few minutes at work), but as a two-player game, not a chance. It does however prove the GW adage that it is all about the minis, not the rules.


Fair points, but with the sands of time running out on your turn in Space Hulk, you experience a sort of 'pressure' that other games never offer.

When under pressure, daft mistakes are often made, which leads to a hugely enjoyable game.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

Herzlos wrote:
Whfb had an accessibility to it that doesn't exist in AoS. Anyone with any exposure to fantasy tropes can choose army army and dive in.AoS requires a layer of translation, explanation and silly names to fight through


I really hope once GW is over the hump that is 8th edition 40K they turn back to fantasy and adjust it so that its more open. I do agree at present its a mess in the way they lumped whole factions together under a great alliance. Try to build a high-elf army as a new player and you can't even find most of the models easily within their website as they are listed under a halfdozen random names. I really hope they tighten things up and bring back the faction identities as a part of the game - considering the generals handbooks have generally done well and such I expect to see them do that.

AOS is messy at present, but lets not forget it was the last big Kirby era release that they were basically locked into performing; so I hope that now they've got some new direction and focus GW can bring fantasy back into line. I don't think we'll see them restore rank and file, but certainly hope they'll restore it a lot


(and heck they could bring back rank and file if they made some custom movement trays with round slots on them)
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So you've read and digested the entirety of the AoS lore, yes?


To answer the implied question here (and partially the one actually being asked), the problem with the AoS background is that it was initially terrible on just about every level. Part of the writer's responsibility, and GW's as a company too, is making me want to explore and discover more about this new world. They failed so spectacularly the original AoS background is almost shorthand for "terrible fantasy world". It may now be better but I have no desire to find out if that's the case given how bad a job they did trying to get me invested in the lore in the first place. The original WH background wasn't exactly breaking the mould but it was written competently enough to make me want to read more. Same goes for the 40k universe. The writing isn't always the best but it has some hook s to draw people in.

Don't want to go too far down the gameplay route here, but I suspect it's also the reason AoS flopped so hard where I am, and elsewhere. Regardless of how good it might be now you get one chance to make a first impression and, for a lot of gamers, GW blew it with AoS.

This writing problem may also end up sinking FFGs Runewars miniature game, or at least being partially responsible. The background is a non-entity for most people, not very well-known and not easy to access. That removes a possible route to getting in new players, which isn't a good thing.
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Sorcerer of Chaos




Louisville KY

For GW to restore rank and file would mean that they would need to add in core rules that support rank and file formations.

They have already stated in many dev interviews and what not over the past two years that they are focused on more streamlined and easier to play rules per the community's request.

We've seen what that means with AOS and 40k 8th.

Retired former wargamer watching the game systems change and evolve as time goes on
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I don't the AOS lore is up to much IMO

I meant rulewise.

AoS lorewise is a huge mix of everything from Norse mythology, Dark Souls to Steampunk and Lovecraft. Also big points in my book.

So you've read and digested the entirety of the AoS lore, yes?

To be fair someone shouldn't have to read that much to be enamored with a universe's lore but on the otherhand good luck finding anything but a very small group of AoS haters that bothered to even read the wiki.

Whfb had an accessibility to it that doesn't exist in AoS. Anyone with any exposure to fantasy tropes can choose army army and dive in.AoS requires a layer of translation, explanation and silly names to fight through


I can see the rename problem (easily solved by the app or getting a grand alliance book) but to say a Norse mythology-like setting that so many genres have taken after from Marvel's Thor to Planescape is beyond anyone interested in it and that they can't dive into a fantasy paladin, dryads, demons, ghouls or steampunk dwarves army(for the basic examples GW displays on the site) seems to massively under-credit a fantasy player of any calibre.

. Try to build a high-elf army as a new player and you can't even find most of the models easily within their website as they are listed under a halfdozen random names. I really hope they tighten things up and bring back the faction identities as a part of the game - considering the generals handbooks have generally done well and such I expect to see them do that. 


The Aelven sub-factions do need cleaning up with a proper Battletome, right now the app is the best beginners tool to finding them on GW's site if not a grand alliance book.

Besides that though I don't really see it as all that messy besides some sub-factions needing to be tidied up. The four alliances also seem necessary for keeping future global campaigns in a sense of balance for player results and war time allegiance boosts.

   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 auticus wrote:
For GW to restore rank and file would mean that they would need to add in core rules that support rank and file formations.

They have already stated in many dev interviews and what not over the past two years that they are focused on more streamlined and easier to play rules per the community's request.

We've seen what that means with AOS and 40k 8th.


I'm all in favour of streamlined rules, but streamlining rules is no excuse for a poor end product.

Look at Chess as an example. Not a lot of rules, but a legendary game that's been with us for centuries.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in gb
Most Glorious Grey Seer






It also hasn't innovated in all that time.

Poor game. Poor show. Booo.

Fed up for Scalpers? Why not join us? 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yeah and white still needs to be nerfed. That first move is OP.

Anyway, I feel we went off-topic here. Is there actually any new games that GW needs to make?

I know I want a AoS Man-o-war (Realm-o-war) that combines naval and aerial combat.

   
Made in us
Enigmatic Sorcerer of Chaos




Louisville KY

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 auticus wrote:
For GW to restore rank and file would mean that they would need to add in core rules that support rank and file formations.

They have already stated in many dev interviews and what not over the past two years that they are focused on more streamlined and easier to play rules per the community's request.

We've seen what that means with AOS and 40k 8th.


I'm all in favour of streamlined rules, but streamlining rules is no excuse for a poor end product.

Look at Chess as an example. Not a lot of rules, but a legendary game that's been with us for centuries.


But thats exactly the chestnut.

What is and is not "good rules" is subjective.

If AOS is making them more money than WHFB they see that as a positive, and attribute that to AOS simple ruleset. I was banned from the tga forums (one of the more popular AOS forums) because I criticized AOS' rules and that was deemed negative and they didn't want that kind of thing on their forum. There are a lot of folks on that forum that LOVE AOS ruleset and get very agitated at talking about changing them.

The AOS facebook pages are similar. If you criticize AOS rules, you will get jumped on and beat down because there are a lot of people that LOVE the AOS ruleset and how easy it is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 13:40:58


Retired former wargamer watching the game systems change and evolve as time goes on
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Myrtle Creek, OR

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 auticus wrote:
For GW to restore rank and file would mean that they would need to add in core rules that support rank and file formations.

They have already stated in many dev interviews and what not over the past two years that they are focused on more streamlined and easier to play rules per the community's request.

We've seen what that means with AOS and 40k 8th.


I'm all in favour of streamlined rules, but streamlining rules is no excuse for a poor end product.

Look at Chess as an example. Not a lot of rules, but a legendary game that's been with us for centuries.


I'd honestly be interested in what makes it a poor product.
Specific examples of why moving, shooting, close combatting, and morale checking are substandard in AoS or 40k8th, would be great.
Also curious what you've played that does a much better job of doing these standard wargame functions.


   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 privateer4hire wrote:
I'd honestly be interested in what makes it a poor product.
Specific examples of why moving, shooting, close combatting, and morale checking are substandard in AoS or 40k8th, would be great.
Also curious what you've played that does a much better job of doing these standard wargame functions.


Moving is ok, I guess, nothing really changed besides standardizing all the various movement special rules into a movement stat. It's pretty hard to screw up "move your models X inches". The main issue is flyers, but that's an inherent problem of aircraft in a 28mm game that has existed since at least 4th edition.

Shooting is a disaster. The penalty for "bad" shots (moving with heavy weapons, shooting at aircraft, etc) is way too generous and minimizes the difference between bad strategies and good ones. Random everything makes it harder to make informed decisions about what to do, and encourages a mindset of "just throw dice and see what happens". Likewise for the new wound table, just throw some dice at whatever because any weapon can hurt any unit. Or just take plasma, because plasma is the best at everything. Removing blast weapons was a bad idea, and the idiocy of rolling to see how many shots you get, then rolling to see if you hit, then rolling to see if you wound, then rolling to see if you save, then rolling to see how many wounds you do is just plain ridiculous and crippled the old blast weapon units that GW had to errata LRBTs to have literally double their firepower just to make them remotely viable. And on top of it all, alpha strikes are far too easy to deliver and reduce the game to a question of who wins the roll to go first.

Close combat has similar problems, plus others. Fixed to-hit rolls make very little sense, and over-buff weak units like conscript hordes. Consolidation is a mess RAW, and allows you to bypass overwatch and lock units in combat without facing overwatch. Overwatch is still an awkward mechanic that is usually a waste of time. Units with long charge distances make melee alpha strikes too mindlessly easy. Removing initiative order over-buffs weak units again.

Morale is a rule that seems to be bad for every situation. Horde units are crippled by it, unless they have abilities that bypass it entirely. MSU units don't care about it at all. Elite armies get barely any bonus to morale compared to conscripts. So it's either "WTF, that's stupid" or skipping the entire phase because none of the dice you roll matter.

Power level is an idiotic mechanic that only "works" because people acknowledge that balance is nonexistent, the rules suck, and there's no reason to bother adding up detailed points. Characters being invulnerable is stupid, and way too easy to exploit. The "everyone in the Imperium is one giant army" faction rules are hilariously terrible. Etc.

In short, 8th edition 40k is a mindless, over-homogenized dumpster fire that only looks good because 7th edition somehow managed to be worse.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/13 16:47:33


Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Tampa, FL

In all honesty dude, why do you play? I mean, i've followed your posts for a long time, some I even agree with (a lot I don't as it wants to break the game down to the "most optimal" all the time) but I think you're always slagging GW and/or 40k (sometimes it's well deserved).

Do you play other, "real" balanced games?

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el





East Coast, USA

 Peregrine wrote:
 privateer4hire wrote:
I'd honestly be interested in what makes it a poor product.
Specific examples of why moving, shooting, close combatting, and morale checking are substandard in AoS or 40k8th, would be great.
Also curious what you've played that does a much better job of doing these standard wargame functions.


Moving is ok, I guess, nothing really changed besides standardizing all the various movement special rules into a movement stat. It's pretty hard to screw up "move your models X inches". The main issue is flyers, but that's an inherent problem of aircraft in a 28mm game that has existed since at least 4th edition.

Shooting is a disaster. The penalty for "bad" shots (moving with heavy weapons, shooting at aircraft, etc) is way too generous and minimizes the difference between bad strategies and good ones. Random everything makes it harder to make informed decisions about what to do, and encourages a mindset of "just throw dice and see what happens". Likewise for the new wound table, just throw some dice at whatever because any weapon can hurt any unit. Or just take plasma, because plasma is the best at everything. Removing blast weapons was a bad idea, and the idiocy of rolling to see how many shots you get, then rolling to see if you hit, then rolling to see if you wound, then rolling to see if you save, then rolling to see how many wounds you do is just plain ridiculous and crippled the old blast weapon units that GW had to errata LRBTs to have literally double their firepower just to make them remotely viable. And on top of it all, alpha strikes are far too easy to deliver and reduce the game to a question of who wins the roll to go first.

Close combat has similar problems, plus others. Fixed to-hit rolls make very little sense, and over-buff weak units like conscript hordes. Consolidation is a mess RAW, and allows you to bypass overwatch and lock units in combat without facing overwatch. Overwatch is still an awkward mechanic that is usually a waste of time. Units with long charge distances make melee alpha strikes too mindlessly easy. Removing initiative order over-buffs weak units again.

Morale is a rule that seems to be bad for every situation. Horde units are crippled by it, unless they have abilities that bypass it entirely. MSU units don't care about it at all. Elite armies get barely any bonus to morale compared to conscripts. So it's either "WTF, that's stupid" or skipping the entire phase because none of the dice you roll matter.

Power level is an idiotic mechanic that only "works" because people acknowledge that balance is nonexistent, the rules suck, and there's no reason to bother adding up detailed points. Characters being invulnerable is stupid, and way too easy to exploit. The "everyone in the Imperium is one giant army" faction rules are hilariously terrible. Etc.

In short, 8th edition 40k is a mindless, over-homogenized dumpster fire that only looks good because 7th edition somehow managed to be worse.


I actually agree with just about everything you said. 8th is better than 7th, but 7th was pretty bad, so that's not saying much.

Add in effects like Feels No Pain and a round of shooting becomes even more ridiculous. A wound might only occur after six die rolls. Very tedious. 40k is not even remotely elegant or modern in terms of game design.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Hurr! Ogryn Bone 'Ead!





Ellicott City, MD

It may not be elegant but it's fun and to be blunt a lot of people agree with me here. The fact that GW cannot keep some 40K kits in stock would suggest that it is selling better than it has in years, if not ever. (I've played since early 2nd Ed and can never remember not being able to find kits because they sold out, poor stocking and shipping back in the 90's yes but not because of high sales)

I left in early 6th Ed because the game stopped being fun, checked back in 7th, still not fun, checked back in 8th and holy gak it's actually fun to play again. Best rules ever? Nope, not even remotely close, it is GW we're talking about here but the point is not having the best rule writing it's making something that is fun and enjoyable to play.

As to the original question I think some of the newer games that were developed post Kirby have shown signs of being innovative. Nothing super crazy but ShadeSpire and Necromunda are showing signs of trying new things and if those products do well as it appears they are/will GW may take more chances, we'll see.

Vonjankmon
Death Korp of Krieg
Dark Angels 
   
Made in fi
Regular Dakkanaut






Ah, it wouldn't be a Dakka-thread without all the cries of "boohoo it ain't modern enough" or how anything done by GW in recent years wouldn't be a dumpster fire

In reality though, OP, I for one can vouch for the newer games too and have in several other threads said how I hold Hewitt's Betrayal at Calth in the same tier as Space Hulk, if not better as a core system for claustrophobic tactical firefights. It has alternating actions (all Hewitt's games have, really: BaC, Newcromunda, upcoming Titanicus...), intriguing yet simple system for Line of Sight -determination (unhindered and obstructed), objective based missions (which is good to follow if one designs their own missions), every single weapon is different and useful (some give more shots, some punch through armour, even the basic bolter strips target units of their action points via pinning), there are actual tactical decisions to be made in the very concise space you're given (which squad to activate, as I can dominate there but then get pummelled to dust here...), pinning enemy units by simply moving is a thing... Really, I could go on why it's a very good base for a game and is a good game even right out of the box. Some have even made a proper table top adaptation of it http://thisveryblog.blogspot.fi/2016/03/betrayal-at-badab-betrayal-at-calth.html

I've played it dozens of times, have the White Dwarf extras, have used it as a demo game in some conventions as long as it has existed. Really, I encourage everyone to honestly try it out with an open mind. If something doesn't work, just tweak it a bit, like doubling the deck sizes and letting both players draw two cards instead of one every turn to reduce the weight of randomness. Or just letting players pick their cards. Just make it your own game your way, but you're really doing yourself a disservice if you simply think of it as a throw-in filler in a miniature deal.

On the Space Hulk front, I also love that one and used my selfmade 3D board as a demo game for a decade now, likewise. Whoever said gak about it earlier on, I love playing as the 'stealer and really giving the termies a fight of their lives

I'm really looking forwards to Adeptus Titanicus and Newcromunda too.

Heavily converted tall scaled 30k / 40k loyalist Death Guard blog here, C&C welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/717557.page 
   
Made in us
Posts with Authority






Wayniac wrote:
In all honesty dude, why do you play? I mean, i've followed your posts for a long time, some I even agree with (a lot I don't as it wants to break the game down to the "most optimal" all the time) but I think you're always slagging GW and/or 40k (sometimes it's well deserved).

Do you play other, "real" balanced games?
It is sometimes a lot easier to write about what you dislike in a game than to describe what you do like. I know that it is for me.

I play Kings of War - simple, well balanced rules that I was able to teach to nine year old players in a single session. So much so that last game... they really did not need me, except to set up the table and tell them the scenarios. (Tactics on the other hand... is a bit longer in coming.)

Simple rules does not mean simple game play.

Right now I am in a league - and am currently at the top, playing orcs for the first time.

And, to be clear, Kings of War is not innovative, except maybe for treating the whole unit as a single model.

And was written by a former GW game designer.

I love Mordheim - no other miniatures game has ever caught me the same way.

Innovative? Probably not.

Fun? Hell, yeah!

Given the choice between a fun game that is not innovative, and a crappy game that is brand new and shiny, I will take the fun game.

For me, Age of Sigmar - the initial release - felt like a slap to the face. No attempt at balance, and rules that seemed like a first draft, written on the back of a tray liner. (Hey, I've written first drafts on the backs of tray liners!) Not even bothering to have point values.

Then War Scrolls that read like poorly considered jokes.

I honestly think that it came down to GW trying to run with the idea that folks were only buying the miniatures to collect - and not to play the danged game. So, AoS was pretty much just an excuse to buy minis, and put them on the table.

As a game, it was not fun, at least for me and my group.

And the poor game play bit them in the arse, and sales dropped like a rock - which was possibly the best thing that could happen for the company - because it got them to finally pay attention.

Before Rountree took over, I was pretty sure we were looking at the twilight of GW - ever shrinking sales, with ever increasing prices, and poorly balanced rules.

And, yeas, some very nice miniatures - even though I do not love me the current aesthetic.

Mantic may go too far the other direction - good rules, but maybe so-so miniatures. (I like their minis - I want figures to play with, not to put on the shelf. And they see use in a lot of games - not just Mantic games, Pathfinder also sees the figures in use. But... even I have to admit that the best GW minis are better than the best Mantic minis.)

Now, I have spent a fair time kvetching about GW - but I also think that they, as a company, are trying to address the problems.

And are definitely making headway again.

Age of Sigmar now is probably what it should have been when it was first released - too late for me and my group, but others seem to really enjoy the game as it is now. Points have been put in, the weird engagement rules shifted to something workable. It is actually a game now. Just not one I want to play. (It is in good company - I think that Dreadball is a great game, with unexpected depth - that I have no interest in playing. My wife, on the other hand, is starting in a Dreadball league next week.)

Necromunda has me buying a GW game for the first time in a long while - it seems an honest attempt.

It also seems that they are paying attention to the setting - fleshing out the gangs and their interactions.

Innovative? Probably not - but I am really looking forward to playing.

So, in a few weeks, I will be playing the game.

I have a lot of very fond memories of playing GW games - Mordheim and Necromunda are my very favorite miniatures games. If Necromunda wasn't coming out, I would almost certainly be organizing a Mordheim game right now.

So, I feel that innovation is not needed - instead, GW should focus on making games that people want to play.

The Auld Grump - it probably sounds like I am griping about GW - but, really, I am very glad that I am not mourning iGW's passing, but instead am planning on playing the danged game.

Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.

The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





it probably sounds like I am griping about GW -

No, that's a fair and balanced personal assessment made by a hobbyist with honest experience. We need more of that around here.

There were many gripe posts (GW is bad and always will be bad because they're not perfect blah blah) but that was not one of them. Bravo.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/14 02:31:08


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Chaplain with Hate to Spare





SoCal

For me and my group, the rules are not the most important aspect of the game. They are third or fourth in the list of things that make a game fun. However, the clarity of the rule book can make or break a game before it starts. Hence, Space Hulk is one of our favorites, while we never managed to get into 40k.

   
Made in gb
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM




We'll find out soon enough eh.

Baron Klatz wrote:

To be fair someone shouldn't have to read that much to be enamored with a universe's lore but on the otherhand good luck finding anything but a very small group of AoS haters that bothered to even read the wiki.



Honestly why would they bother, genuine attempts on my part to try and get a handle on some aspects of the fluff that were a sticking point was met with self-righteous posturing and accusations of trolling by the AoS community, the fans are evidently quite happy in their wee bubble branding anyone who wasn't 1000% on-board on launch day as a "hater"

I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: