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.
Psienesis wrote: I think balance would be fairly easy to maintain. You look at your army, look at the other guy's army and go "yeah, ok, let's play" or "nah, feth that. I have ten guys and a truck, you have 10 tanks, six planes, four giant robots and a squig stuffed into Logan's chariot. Feth you."
The main problem with this is that you think people want a fair game, or that people can agree on what's fair in the first place. It's not impossible, but it's uncommon to say the least.
Looking for Durham Region gamers in Ontario Canada, send me a PM!
See my gallery for Chapterhouse's Tervigon, fully painted.
Most of 40K's problems could be cleared up with a decent FAQ, but FAQs are the one 'hobby product' GW doesn't make.
To be fair, the point at which GW stopped making FAQs was the time at which they would have had to task the writing team to begin statting Warscrolls for every single unit in Fantasy while beginning work on all of the scenarios around which the balance of AoS appears to be drawn from. The writing team has been really, really busy as of late. I've got my fingers crossed that this means FAQs may return shortly.
But I'm not holding my breath.
AoS40k will only happen if AoS is a *huge* hit. If fantasy begins outselling 40k, it is likely to happen. If not, then they will be kept two very different systems.
Massawyrm wrote: To be fair, the point at which GW stopped making FAQs was the time at which they would have had to task the writing team to begin statting Warscrolls for every single unit in Fantasy while beginning work on all of the scenarios around which the balance of AoS appears to be drawn from. The writing team has been really, really busy as of late. I've got my fingers crossed that this means FAQs may return shortly.
So, GW stopped making FAQs the day before AoS was published? Because they certainly didn't spend much more time than that on creating the AoS rules.
AoS40k will only happen if AoS is a *huge* hit.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. If GW is stupid enough to think that AoS is anything but a spectacularly bad idea then what guarantee is there that its failure would prevent them from doing the same to 40k?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
insaniak wrote: It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.
If they did that it would be a huge improvement. But sadly AoS has nothing to do with MTG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote: Guys, it's... it's a game where having a large enough moustache gives you combat bonuses. If you're complaining about the rules being silly, I think you've missed the point.
No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.
They're worth a TON of money. I think they're doing a decent job in the business industry. They're a model company with game rules attached. Not a game company with models attached.
Is your business more successful?
" $@#& YOU! There are 3 things I want in a guy: Tall, Handsome, and plays Dark Eldar!"-every woman since
November 2010
insaniak wrote: It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.
If they did that it would be a huge improvement. But sadly AoS has nothing to do with MTG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote: Guys, it's... it's a game where having a large enough moustache gives you combat bonuses. If you're complaining about the rules being silly, I think you've missed the point.
No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.
They're worth a TON of money. I think they're doing a decent job in the business industry. They're a model company with game rules attached. Not a game company with models attached.
Is your business more successful?
Well they are successful now because of their history. And actually, 40k used to have a lot of wackiness to it, they have since turned down that sillynness. The Black Templar used to have the holy orb of antioch (right out of monty python). the guard used to have Sly Marbo (sly is sylvers stallones nickname and marbo is an anagram of rambo).
But we will see if this new business model is a success and how popular it becomes. I don't see a lot of people wanting to jump in to it though and the enthusiasm in my area is almost none. So while the business used to have a great reputation and be very popular, they may just be cruising on that former glory right now.
insaniak wrote: It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.
If they did that it would be a huge improvement. But sadly AoS has nothing to do with MTG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote: Guys, it's... it's a game where having a large enough moustache gives you combat bonuses. If you're complaining about the rules being silly, I think you've missed the point.
No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.
They're worth a TON of money. I think they're doing a decent job in the business industry. They're a model company with game rules attached. Not a game company with models attached.
Is your business more successful?
How do you know they're doing a decent job, do YOU have a successful business?
I'm guessing your reaction to that is "no, what's your point?" Well the same thing goes for making remarks that people can't judge how a business is doing without running one of nearly equal size.
It's like Michael Eisner at Disney- it was quite obviously that he wasn't running the company well, and people reacted to him poorly. And guess what happened- the board eventually kicked him out of the position. The same thing equally applies to GW, and can be a result of the company being run down enough by Kirby & Krony Krew.
The company has been losing a lot of revenue. I'm not going to sit here and repeat all of that because it's from the financials thread, but it would seem obvious there is trouble on their end. And I don't think it requires an MBA to discuss some of their issues if you can support it with well-supported evidence.
Jambles wrote:Through the lens of video games especially, it seems clear that consumers - especially younger consumers (GET OFF MY LAWN) - just don't care about the same things we do. They WILL buy in to the heavily-marketed, fancy new thing on the shelf. Forget that it's half-finished or functionally broken.
Age of Sigmar will sell very well, and I'm sure will gather a non-insignificant following. And then we'll be next.
Call me a doomsayer, but all the signs I can see point to this being the future of the hobby for GW products.
As one of those younger consumers, I think it's safe to say that those who have the patience and/or attention span to invest in something like wargaming in the first place generally care just a bit for balance. Those that want something quick, simple, and easy are already playing cawwadooty.
insaniak wrote: It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.
If they did that it would be a huge improvement. But sadly AoS has nothing to do with MTG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyldhunt wrote: Guys, it's... it's a game where having a large enough moustache gives you combat bonuses. If you're complaining about the rules being silly, I think you've missed the point.
No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.
They're worth a TON of money. I think they're doing a decent job in the business industry. They're a model company with game rules attached. Not a game company with models attached.
Is your business more successful?
Well they are successful now because of their history. And actually, 40k used to have a lot of wackiness to it, they have since turned down that sillynness. The Black Templar used to have the holy orb of antioch (right out of monty python). the guard used to have Sly Marbo (sly is sylvers stallones nickname and marbo is an anagram of rambo).
But we will see if this new business model is a success and how popular it becomes. I don't see a lot of people wanting to jump in to it though and the enthusiasm in my area is almost none. So while the business used to have a great reputation and be very popular, they may just be cruising on that former glory right now.
I think GW is aware, at least to a certain extent. The appeal that 40K has over other wargames is the setting. Obviously, different players will care more about different aspects of the game than others, but the grim darkness of the far future is what sets it apart from competitors, which is why I believe they have been afraid to move the storyline forward at all.
When the only tool you have is a Skyhammer, every army begins to resemble a nail.
The storyline moves forward incrementally, sorta, but the general gist of 40K now is how it has always been. I say "sorta" because while we hear about Planet X getting blown up and Person A dying, another hero is introduced and another world is found/recovered/captured... the actual effect on the setting is minimal. Same with the major events. The Months of Shame supposedly wrecked up the Space Wolf fleet in clashes with the GK across the Imperium.... but that hasn't stopped the SW from launching a number of Hunts and otherwise performing their job in the interim. Or the GK, for that matter.
40K is not a story, it's a setting.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
as for AoS, I've heard from a friend who owns a fairly major game supply company that if GW's finanicals don't turn around they could go bankrupt in as little as ten years. AoS is proably part of that effort to correct it. though I don't think it'll work. (the person who said they're a mini company that also produces gaming stuff was dead on. in the GW/Citadel minis relationship. Citadel is clearly the one driving the show) fact is that many other gaming companies have also tried to reverse down turns by simplifying the rules to drag in a new younger audiance, as well as "using a time jump to effectivly reboot the setting, so that the reams and reams of backlore is no longer there to intimidate the new comer" the two examples I personally have experiance with is WOTC's 4th edition forgotten realms, and wizkids Mechwarrior Dark Age game (incidently battletech/mechwarrior is honestly the type of game GW seems to want 40k to be, a game you can sit down and play in an afternoon, but also one that's popular for narritive building) in both these cases the end product flubbed. people who where there primarily for the setting absolutly despised what had happened to it (BTW this is why an AOS for 40k would be idiotic. 40K the setting has far more fans then 40k the table top game) and the total rules change also drove off fans of the games ruleset. the end result was they had to build a fanbase from scratch.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Wulfmar wrote:How soon do you guys reckon it will be until 8th comes out?
I think it'll be this time next year.
I think GW believes their average customer sticks around for just shy of two years, so they want to get them with the initial purchase, a kit here or there and then try to get them to rebuy the game at least once before they quit.
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
Perhaps. That's a very subjective conclusion, however, and certainly not true of everyone. While removing points values may be fun for some, one may objectively assert that such a game is by no means balanced. It's also of limited utility in pick-up games.
When the only tool you have is a Skyhammer, every army begins to resemble a nail.
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
Yes, because "I'll field roughly 10k points of stuff, and you field your whole collection of 2k points" sounds like a fair and fun fight.
gak sarcasm is gak.
"If you wait a few months, they'll pick one of the worst codexes and they'll nerf almost everything, its an abstract sort of balance, but it's the sort of balance gw likes... "
I think the trick would be like one posted put it.
Player-1: Selects one unit of choice
Player-2: Selects one unit of choice
Player-1: Selects one unit of choice
Player-2: Selects one one unit of choice
Player-1: Selects one unit of choice
Player-2: Selects one one unit of choice
and so on until both have fielded what they both field enough to for the table to handle.
This way if your opponent starts to drop Riptides/Wraith Knight's/Imperial Knights/Banblades on the table you can put down your counter.
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
You could do the same thing, but with X amount of unset points, i.e., play a 2k game, 1k preset, 1k put together on the fly. Regardless, I think it's still not great, and the "I pick you pick" method has some major flaws too, that being making pick up games harder, tournies MUCH harder to organize. Sure it might be ok for a beer and chips game, but other than that, what's the advantage? Better balance? as if. If you set down 10 CSM tacticals, and I set down a knight as "one" unit, I have a MASSIVE advantage. You then set down, whatever anti knight unit you have, and I set down a WK, or some WG w/ a WWP, and so on. Having an "I pick you pivk" system doesn't work unless there's something more involved, i.e. "You must take 2 troops, 1HQ, etc etc". Which, if AoS is any indication, they won't bother with including.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
You could do the same thing, but with X amount of unset points, i.e., play a 2k game, 1k preset, 1k put together on the fly. Regardless, I think it's still not great, and the "I pick you pick" method has some major flaws too, that being making pick up games harder, tournies MUCH harder to organize. Sure it might be ok for a beer and chips game, but other than that, what's the advantage? Better balance? as if. If you set down 10 CSM tacticals, and I set down a knight as "one" unit, I have a MASSIVE advantage. You then set down, whatever anti knight unit you have, and I set down a WK, or some WG w/ a WWP, and so on. Having an "I pick you pivk" system doesn't work unless there's something more involved, i.e. "You must take 2 troops, 1HQ, etc etc". Which, if AoS is any indication, they won't bother with including.
This problem can easily be solved by talking to your opponent first too. If you find out he wast to drop two Knights on the table and you have nothing to deal with it in your Army Box, what makes it any different than two CAD Armies?
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
You could do the same thing, but with X amount of unset points, i.e., play a 2k game, 1k preset, 1k put together on the fly. Regardless, I think it's still not great, and the "I pick you pick" method has some major flaws too, that being making pick up games harder, tournies MUCH harder to organize. Sure it might be ok for a beer and chips game, but other than that, what's the advantage? Better balance? as if. If you set down 10 CSM tacticals, and I set down a knight as "one" unit, I have a MASSIVE advantage. You then set down, whatever anti knight unit you have, and I set down a WK, or some WG w/ a WWP, and so on. Having an "I pick you pivk" system doesn't work unless there's something more involved, i.e. "You must take 2 troops, 1HQ, etc etc". Which, if AoS is any indication, they won't bother with including.
This problem can easily be solved by talking to your opponent first too. If you find out he wast to drop two Knights on the table and you have nothing to deal with it in your Army Box, what makes it any different than two CAD Armies?
What if I'm not playing a PUG? What if I'm a more competitive player who wants to play in a tourny? Do I simply ask my opponent "No, please don't field 50 WKs/IKs/Baneblades? I'd like to win!"?
Talking is well and fine, but honestly, you shouldn't NEED to talk to your opponent to agree on what to play. It's far easier to go "let's play 1500pts" than to just put models down on the table and keep going until it "feels right".
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
This problem can easily be solved by talking to your opponent first too. If you find out he wast to drop two Knights on the table and you have nothing to deal with it in your Army Box, what makes it any different than two CAD Armies?
That same problem can be solved the same way with points.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
You could do the same thing, but with X amount of unset points, i.e., play a 2k game, 1k preset, 1k put together on the fly. Regardless, I think it's still not great, and the "I pick you pick" method has some major flaws too, that being making pick up games harder, tournies MUCH harder to organize. Sure it might be ok for a beer and chips game, but other than that, what's the advantage? Better balance? as if. If you set down 10 CSM tacticals, and I set down a knight as "one" unit, I have a MASSIVE advantage. You then set down, whatever anti knight unit you have, and I set down a WK, or some WG w/ a WWP, and so on. Having an "I pick you pivk" system doesn't work unless there's something more involved, i.e. "You must take 2 troops, 1HQ, etc etc". Which, if AoS is any indication, they won't bother with including.
This problem can easily be solved by talking to your opponent first too. If you find out he wast to drop two Knights on the table and you have nothing to deal with it in your Army Box, what makes it any different than two CAD Armies?
What if I'm not playing a PUG? What if I'm a more competitive player who wants to play in a tourny? Do I simply ask my opponent "No, please don't field 50 WKs/IKs/Baneblades? I'd like to win!"?
Talking is well and fine, but honestly, you shouldn't NEED to talk to your opponent to agree on what to play. It's far easier to go "let's play 1500pts" than to just put models down on the table and keep going until it "feels right".
Then a 5 min conversation before the game should tell you that.
This problem can easily be solved by talking to your opponent first too. If you find out he wast to drop two Knights on the table and you have nothing to deal with it in your Army Box, what makes it any different than two CAD Armies?
That same problem can be solved the same way with points.
No points don't really stop a 5 Imperial Night list of 50 Scatter Bikes from being used at all.
You should not "Have" to talk to your opponent, you should "Want" to talk to your opponent. I have found this solves problems before you even start the game.
No points don't really stop a 5 Imperial Night list of 50 Scatter Bikes from being used at all.
Neither does no points.
Both are solved by talking to your opponent. There is no advantage to a game without points or similar balancing mechanism.
Both No Points and a Point system have there problems.
You can solve a lot of those problems by talking with your opponent for a few moments before the game. This can be the week before or right before, but I have never had a truly bed game by doing this. Most of my 'Bad Games' have come from and opponent who just plops down his army on the table and says "Lets Play"
Martel732 wrote: I don't want to have to beg my opponent to not win. That's just pathetic.
No, it has nothing to do with that. It is about what is expected from the game, finding out what he is planning on playing basically and what he wants from the game. Finding out if the armies are equal to each other in overall power. More than once I have encountered an under powered list and after talking with my Opponent did little things like just giving him the choice of mission or the choice of who deploys first.
I had one game back in 4th where I told my opponent that I wanted to try my small Deathwing and he just nodded and pulled out his shiny new Eldar Dex and just blew my off the table using his runes to make sure I got no cover or anything. I found he "Never Practices." If he was willing to talk I would have know this and moved on to the next person instead of wasting and hour of both our time.
Martel732 wrote: I don't want to have to beg my opponent to not win. That's just pathetic.
No, it has nothing to do with that. It is about what is expected from the game, finding out what he is planning on playing basically and what he wants from the game. Finding out if the armies are equal to each other in overall power. More than once I have encountered an under powered list and after talking with my Opponent did little things like just giving him the choice of mission or the choice of who deploys first.
I had one game back in 4th where I told my opponent that I wanted to try my small Deathwing and he just nodded and pulled out his shiny new Eldar Dex and just blew my off the table using his runes to make sure I got no cover or anything. I found he "Never Practices." If he was willing to talk I would have know this and moved on to the next person instead of wasting and hour of both our time.
No one is going to tell me what they are playing. That's the whole point of random opponents. No one can list tailor. Expectations: tabling on the earliest turn possible. If you table, then objectives don't matter.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/16 01:04:30
Anpu42 wrote: I was thinking about the No-Points System and it could be a fun alternative way to run and play an Unbound Game.
You could do the same thing, but with X amount of unset points, i.e., play a 2k game, 1k preset, 1k put together on the fly. Regardless, I think it's still not great, and the "I pick you pick" method has some major flaws too, that being making pick up games harder, tournies MUCH harder to organize. Sure it might be ok for a beer and chips game, but other than that, what's the advantage? Better balance? as if. If you set down 10 CSM tacticals, and I set down a knight as "one" unit, I have a MASSIVE advantage. You then set down, whatever anti knight unit you have, and I set down a WK, or some WG w/ a WWP, and so on. Having an "I pick you pivk" system doesn't work unless there's something more involved, i.e. "You must take 2 troops, 1HQ, etc etc". Which, if AoS is any indication, they won't bother with including.
This problem can easily be solved by talking to your opponent first too. If you find out he wast to drop two Knights on the table and you have nothing to deal with it in your Army Box, what makes it any different than two CAD Armies?
What if I'm not playing a PUG? What if I'm a more competitive player who wants to play in a tourny? Do I simply ask my opponent "No, please don't field 50 WKs/IKs/Baneblades? I'd like to win!"?
Talking is well and fine, but honestly, you shouldn't NEED to talk to your opponent to agree on what to play. It's far easier to go "let's play 1500pts" than to just put models down on the table and keep going until it "feels right".
Then a 5 min conversation before the game should tell you that.
[/i]
You missed the "tourny play" bit there. You cannot go to a tourny and expect people to conform to what you THINK is reasonable, along with being FAR simpler to organize.
No points is a fine system if both players are looking for the same thing, an extremely casual game, and nothing else. It hurts PUGs, it hurts tourny play, it hurts even the PARTIALLY competitive games between players.
As for the 2 CAD thing, isn't that what AoS threw out? No more force org chart it's all unbound? Just place whatever and hope your opponent isn't a jackass mentality? The FOCs in 40k at least attempt provide SOME balance by (generally) limiting how many Knights you can bring (i.e. 1 per CAD, and obviously not all the formations are balanced to say the least).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/16 02:39:59
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
1500pts Kabal of the Blood Moon
200pts Order of Ash and Silver
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
