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.

 General Helstrom wrote:
I don't fancy playing Imperial Assault's campaign again after we finish the first one because all the twists and surprises will be spoiled. I'm enjoying it immensely as it unfolds, don't get me wrong, I just don't see much replay value in it.

throw the first mission; if you do that, all the fixed story missions are different.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The existence of points values doesn't kill that kind of gameplay, it helps it.

You want to create a scenario in which one side has an advantage but that scenario should still be winnable by the side with the disadvantage. Without some system of comparing the relative strength of both sides you are just guessing.

In the LOTR game it had a scenario for the Battle of the Last Alliance. Good side got all the big heroes and men and elves and the evil side got sauron and a lot of orcs. Pointswise the good side had 2000 and the evil had 3000. Good side had to kill sauron to win, evil just had to keep him alive and kill the good heroes. Although heavily skewed against the good side (just like the battle from the story) it was possible for them to win.

Without some means of knowing how much of an advantage one side has over the over, making skewed scenarios can easily become making a scenario one side has no hope of winning.

I'm not so sure about that. I guess if you haven't played the game much yet, having the points helps give you an idea, so in this case you'd have an idea of how many more orcs you'd want to have. But if you set the game up and neither side thinks it's hopeless (and they have both played the game before), then it's probably balanced enough. Sure, you might get partway through the game and realize you were wrong, and that really one side was very unlikely to win. But guess what? That happens all the time even with armies of the same number of points. So the points don't actually prevent you from playing a game one side has no hope of winning.

I used to dislike Jervis' ideas but the more I think about it the more I realize he's kinda right. There is way more to the game than equal points, symmetrical missions and competitive focused gameplay, yet this seems to be the only thing that gets focused on.

Wayniac wrote:
I used to dislike Jervis' ideas but the more I think about it the more I realize he's kinda right. There is way more to the game than equal points, symmetrical missions and competitive focused gameplay, yet this seems to be the only thing that gets focused on.

I don't think the current way of doing things is sustainable. How many more years can the tournament focus support an entire industry? How many games have lost a sizeable part of its playerbase due to perceived imbalance and unpopular editions? WMH mk3 comes to mind, but I know the last edition or two of WHFB wasn't popular, and 40k was certainly less popular before 8th. It's not sustainable.

Jervis isn't just kinda right. All of GW's success now started with Age of Sigmar. People may scoff at the idea, but 40k 8th is basically a slightly more refined AOS, not just in rules but in purpose and direction. The "three ways to play" started in the AOS GHB and became codified in the big rule book for 40k and AOS2 and even Kill Team. AOS saved GW.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I used to dislike Jervis' ideas but the more I think about it the more I realize he's kinda right. There is way more to the game than equal points, symmetrical missions and competitive focused gameplay, yet this seems to be the only thing that gets focused on.

I don't think the current way of doing things is sustainable. How many more years can the tournament focus support an entire industry? How many games have lost a sizeable part of its playerbase due to perceived imbalance and unpopular editions? WMH mk3 comes to mind, but I know the last edition or two of WHFB wasn't popular, and 40k was certainly less popular before 8th. It's not sustainable.

Jervis isn't just kinda right. All of GW's success now started with Age of Sigmar. People may scoff at the idea, but 40k 8th is basically a slightly more refined AOS, not just in rules but in purpose and direction. The "three ways to play" started in the AOS GHB and became codified in the big rule book for 40k and AOS2 and even Kill Team. AOS saved GW.

Yes, but I think a big drawback was pre-GHB AOS was DOA because people spent too much complaining about "balance" or "what ifs" (e.g. what if my opponent fielded only monsters, what if my opponent fields 500 models to my 50, etc.). I think Jervis' main approach is that the game is way more than competitive tournament lists and tight balance, it's about a story and enjoying the rich lore and source material. And yet, AOS showed that a game without at least pretending to cater to tournaments won't work. The community, vocal minority or otherwise, seem to want an e-sport like game with recognized world championships.

Wayniac wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I used to dislike Jervis' ideas but the more I think about it the more I realize he's kinda right. There is way more to the game than equal points, symmetrical missions and competitive focused gameplay, yet this seems to be the only thing that gets focused on.

I don't think the current way of doing things is sustainable. How many more years can the tournament focus support an entire industry? How many games have lost a sizeable part of its playerbase due to perceived imbalance and unpopular editions? WMH mk3 comes to mind, but I know the last edition or two of WHFB wasn't popular, and 40k was certainly less popular before 8th. It's not sustainable.

Jervis isn't just kinda right. All of GW's success now started with Age of Sigmar. People may scoff at the idea, but 40k 8th is basically a slightly more refined AOS, not just in rules but in purpose and direction. The "three ways to play" started in the AOS GHB and became codified in the big rule book for 40k and AOS2 and even Kill Team. AOS saved GW.

Yes, but I think a big drawback was pre-GHB AOS was DOA because people spent too much complaining about "balance" or "what ifs" (e.g. what if my opponent fielded only monsters, what if my opponent fields 500 models to my 50, etc.). I think Jervis' main approach is that the game is way more than competitive tournament lists and tight balance, it's about a story and enjoying the rich lore and source material. And yet, AOS showed that a game without at least pretending to cater to tournaments won't work. The community, vocal minority or otherwise, seem to want an e-sport like game with recognized world championships.

I think the only reason for that was the preceding decades of Games Workshop always focusing on points values. They kind of set themselves up for that. For people that had only played GW games (as he somewhat predicted) for many the only way they knew how to play was to have equal points and a mission with both sides having the same objective. Anyone who has played a historical miniatures game would be completely comfortable with the idea of playing a scenario without needing points. Not many people panic about "what if my opponent brings 500 regiments of the the Old Guard and I only have a few battalions of Landwehr painted!" Well, you would never play such a game. Duh. But if points is all you've ever known, I guess it can take some adjustment.

To be fair, it is a little harder to balance in a fantasy game where things can be SO different in power levels and have so many rules and interactions you'd have to know to have a good idea on how powerful it is going to be in a given scenario.

There were no points in Inquisitor, and people seem to have played that just fine in the spirit it was intended.

Wayniac wrote:
Yes, but I think a big drawback was pre-GHB AOS was DOA because people spent too much complaining about "balance" or "what ifs" (e.g. what if my opponent fielded only monsters, what if my opponent fields 500 models to my 50, etc.). I think Jervis' main approach is that the game is way more than competitive tournament lists and tight balance, it's about a story and enjoying the rich lore and source material. And yet, AOS showed that a game without at least pretending to cater to tournaments won't work. The community, vocal minority or otherwise, seem to want an e-sport like game with recognized world championships.

I think it was just a matter of not knowing any differently. I think a lot of older players, or players who had experience in other types of games, didn't quite see the lack of points as quite the obstacle that people who were born and raised in key party gaming.

I'm reading a book about cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) right now. If you aren't familiar with it, it is a type of therapy that identifies certain bad thought patterns (schema) which brains tend to rely on, but which lead to faulty or unhelpful outcomes. They are sort of like thinking fallacies. CBT is about identifying these, and coming up with alternative ways of thinking that are more helpful and productive. Apparently, CBT is as effective at treating depression as drugs and other therapies, with none of the side effects. It's been recommended for my daughter, who suffers from generalized anxiety, but I've seen it suggested for all sorts of things, including Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Here are a few. See how many you can recognize from the arguments about AOS killing WHFB and not having points:

Emotional reasoning - believing that what we feel must be true because we feel it to be.

Polarized thinking - things are black and white, no shades of grey

Overgeneralizaiton - taking one or two examples of bad things and assuming it to always be true.

Jumping to conclusions - self evident.

Catastrophizing - This bad thing is the end the world. It will always be this bad and we will never be happy again.

Fairness Fallacy - We think we know what is fair, but get upset because nobody agrees with us. "People who go through life applying a measuring ruler against every situation judging its “fairness” will often feel badly and negative because of it."

Blaming - It is always someone else's fault. We never take responsibility for our own involvement in our unhappiness.

Fallacy of Change - We believe that we can change others if we force them to change. Our happiness is dependent on what other people think, do, and feel.

Labeling - Grouping opponents together under a label and generalizing about them, their intent, and their beliefs.

Heaven's Reward Fallacy - the idea that our sacrifices and loyalty will ultimately be rewarded, but feel betrayed, bitter, and angry if we feel that reward is not forthcoming.

And so on. The list is much larger, but I just cribbed a few of the more commonplace ones. I believe that it wasn't the lack of points that proved that AOS couldn't work, but that the scheme that miniature gamers use to interpret the industry are deeply flawed and lead them to incorrect conclusions that make them very unhappy, all the time.

I mean, I do some of these too. It isn't a criticism of the people who have these schema. It's just that, unawares to them, there is faulty thinking behind their more self destructive behaviors.

I mostly played campaigns or different 'fun' scenarios with Warhammer Fantasy - lots of them taken straight out of the General's Compendium. The Border Princes campaign, holding your ground against a foe that got to respawn core troops, battles in the ash-choked Dark Lands, a fan-made siege scenario, batteries of war machines vs. raiding parties sent to silence them, a skirmish between watchtower guards and a raiding party trying to prevent them from lighting a beacon, the battle for the gates of Nuln, so on and so forth.

All of these used points as a helpful aid. They weren't always equal-point matchups - a number of them skewed one way or the other or even had a two-to-one advantage for one side, with the difference made up for in objectives, fortifications, or scenario-granted bonuses. During the campaign, some sides had a flat-out advantage due to digging in or bringing up reinforcements. Points are not anathema to interesting 'narrative' gameplay; they are a helpful shorthand and balancing tool, especially useful for people new to a system or wargaming in general who aren't as familiar with what works well, or what has a reasonable chance of stacking up against something else. There's nothing inherently wrong with players preferring to use points, and there's nothing inherently wrong with using points as an eyeball estimate or ditching them altogether if you'd rather work the scenario out another way. The lack of points was only one of Age of Sigmar's many issues as a replacement for one of their flagship games when they rolled it out, and taken in a vacuum, wouldn't have been that bad, but having points in a game doesn't make it badwrongfun.

 Spinner wrote:
All of these used points as a helpful aid.

But not a REQUIRED one.

I don't care if people enjoy points, prefer points, or can't get up in the morning without their breakfast cup of points - The only thing I want is the explicit admission that points are optional - that they are a CHOICE - and that not having points in no way means the game lazy, broken, or unplayable. That designers are ALLOWED to make that choice if they wish, and if people don't play the game, it is because of their SUBJECTIVE opinion that they don't enjoy the game and not that the game is objectively faulty. That's all. You don't have to defend points because I'm not arguing that points should be removed from any game that has them.

And I'll never get that. You know why? Because gamers are conditioned to believe that points are required. You show them a game without points and all you'll hear is, "Doesn't look like anything to me".

Points are not anathema to interesting 'narrative' gameplay; they are a helpful shorthand and balancing tool, especially useful for people new to a system or wargaming in general who aren't as familiar with what works well, or what has a reasonable chance of stacking up against something else.

The argument has never been against points. I've always maintained that points are a useful tool - one among MANY - but that they tend to have a way of dominating the mindset players have with a game, and ultimately end up reducing the playspace of a game. That is, points have a design cost. A tradeoff. By choosing points, you are saying that you willingly give up something up.

The NOVA pack for Kill Team came out and there was a rule in there that units couldn't climb any terrain more than 2" tall. It greatly reduced the options the game had. That's what points are to me. In the pursuit of "fairness", they end up removing options and experiences that make the game interesting. If my goal were "fairness" (or some approximation thereof), that might be a trade off I'd be willing to make. And for many people, it is. But it isn't REQUIRED. Game designers can choose not to make that trade off, and players can enjoy games like that without fearing insult and ridicule from other gamers (who don't even play the game).

There's nothing inherently wrong with players preferring to use points,

Now say that there is nothing inherently wrong with players preferring NOT to use points.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Jervis isn't just kinda right. All of GW's success now started with Age of Sigmar. People may scoff at the idea, but 40k 8th is basically a slightly more refined AOS, not just in rules but in purpose and direction. The "three ways to play" started in the AOS GHB and became codified in the big rule book for 40k and AOS2 and even Kill Team. AOS saved GW.

Wow, on restrospect, I think you are right.

I may need to put this in my sig.

 Sqorgar wrote:
AOS saved GW.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Jervis isn't just kinda right. All of GW's success now started with Age of Sigmar.

Not even kinda right.

The only thing that ties in with the uptick in GW's sales is the release of new, in many cases long desired, mini lines.

While it sticks in my throat to say so, Kirby was right when he said GW was a model company. It wasn't a rule system of any sort, it was the release of the big boxes with HH Marines, GSC etc..

Whether the departure of Merritt or the appointment of Rountree was the catalyst for those releases you'd need inside information to know for sure, but I can categorically state that the release of AOS or 8th is not the flashpoint for the turnaround.

Saved GW might have been a bit much, but there's no doubt that Age of Sigmar was the turning point for GW. The moment when "new GW" was born. And a lot of the success that GW has now is due to the refinement of the principles and direction that started with AOS. AOS was extremely experimental compared to past GW releases, but they've kept the vast majority of it going forward - even things that were initially VERY unpopular at AOS' release.

Those original 4 pages of free rules were a mission statement written in game design, and time has proven that mission statement multiple times over. It set the stage for a new era of Games Workshop, and I think it proves that Jervis was right about everything. They just needed to give you people some point values to make you think you were winning.

Sorry, but the facts just don't support this.

The AOS release came at the start of the 2015 financial year for GW. Their 2015/2016 report posted lower revenue than 14/15 and still within the Kirby era.

If anything, the release of AOS actually had a net detriment on GW's performance, and by the time GW was starting to show signs of recovery the first GHB was well on its way, so even if AOS somehow did turn things around, it was only once points were introduced in 2016, which is shown in the 16/17 report.

Nothing you're asserting is borne out by their financial reports.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 General Helstrom wrote:
I don't fancy playing Imperial Assault's campaign again after we finish the first one because all the twists and surprises will be spoiled. I'm enjoying it immensely as it unfolds, don't get me wrong, I just don't see much replay value in it.

throw the first mission; if you do that, all the fixed story missions are different.

Thanks man, I'll give that a try once we finish our campaign!

I'm not really sure what this thread is about anymore. Jervis still works at GW. I guess if AOS saved Games Workshop that means WFB died for our sins That's not what brought me back to the hobby though. I'm still too salty to touch AOS. Love what they've done with 40K though and especially love how they're engaging with the community now in a way that resembles a business run by grown-ups. I even love their burgers! That pilgrimage to Warhammer World last month was totally worth it. Who cares about what fiscal year this happened.

Maybe I'll start my own thread about narrative gaming. With blackjack. And hookers. In fact - forget the thread and the blackjack!

 Azreal13 wrote:
Sorry, but the facts just don't support this.

The AOS release came at the start of the 2015 financial year for GW. Their 2015/2016 report posted lower revenue than 14/15 and still within the Kirby era.

If anything, the release of AOS actually had a net detriment on GW's performance, and by the time GW was starting to show signs of recovery the first GHB was well on its way, so even if AOS somehow did turn things around, it was only once points were introduced in 2016, which is shown in the 16/17 report.

Nothing you're asserting is borne out by their financial reports.

After watching Sqorgor tirade on an anti-GHB rant and how super special bestest perfect AOS was on launch, THEN following up with "AOS saved GW", and a splash of "I just want my preferred method of play validated and the OTHER type invalidated", and that sly stab at putting the now-forbidden US politics into this thread, I've decided that no amount of logic and reason will sway them. They are not an AOS player, they are a Disciple of AOS, and the difference is quite obvious.

 Just Tony wrote:
After watching Sqorgor tirade on an anti-GHB rant and how super special bestest perfect AOS was on launch, THEN following up with "AOS saved GW", and a splash of "I just want my preferred method of play validated and the OTHER type invalidated", and that sly stab at putting the now-forbidden US politics into this thread, I've decided that no amount of logic and reason will sway them. They are not an AOS player, they are a Disciple of AOS, and the difference is quite obvious.

We were just talking about straw man arguments! How lucky we are that we have you here to demonstrate!

But pray tell, if no amount of logic and reason will sway me... of what, I wonder? What exactly is the position that you wish to sway me towards?

...


HelloKitty?



Anyway, we'll give it a shot and ask these questions: How did AOS save GW? Do you have any financial/sales reports showing ANY miniature company dethroning GW from the #1 spot, and conversely it returning BECAUSE of the AOS initial release?

 Just Tony wrote:
Anyway, we'll give it a shot and ask these questions: How did AOS save GW? Do you have any financial/sales reports showing ANY miniature company dethroning GW from the #1 spot, and conversely it returning BECAUSE of the AOS initial release?

Ideologically, it saved GW. It set the direction for each one of their products since, and set the standards that GW, as a company, has come to be known by now. And ideologically, AOS (and 40k) seem to embody the beliefs professed by Jervis in that article that keeps getting posted.

Frankly, I don't know why you guys keep thinking I'm talking about financially, since as a player, I don't care about that kind of stuff at all. Whether GW's statements move up or down is ultimately worthless, as there's no way to know for sure what influenced this change and how much. It's all just speculation, and largely empty. You can say that GW's financials went down because AOS, but can you really say that? Can you say how much?

Financially, I have no idea how well AOS did. Not exactly. It wasn't an abject failure, despite how badly a lot of people wanted it to be. It wasn't a run away success either. But it made more money than WHFB, and had the potential for growth that WHFB didn't have. And it was growing with each new release. It didn't start out perfect, but with each refinement, more and more people were getting into it - especially with the new armies like with the Sylvaneth, Fyreslayers, Everchosen, and Ironjawz. Hell, I think the Stormcast were a lot more popular than people give them credit for here.

The question is, did the GHB turn the tide or not? I don't think we can know for sure. I mean, we can say that public opinion certainly improved, here, but it was already improving. The destruction of WHFB was no longer a festering wound, but a healing scar. Early issues with the AOS setting were getting ironed out as more fiction was released. People were coming up with new structures to define their games, refining games based on wounds/warscrolls and providing multiple point systems - even adding campaign rules (Paths to Glory, Hinterlands). FAQs were released that cleared up various ambiguities in the rules.

The time was right for people to form a second opinion on AOS, and the GHB gave them the excuse to do so. But there's no doubt in my mind that if the GHB had been released a year earlier, it wouldn't have had nearly the impact that it did. People weren't ready to forgive AOS then.

The points thing just became a lightning rod for all the frustrations people had about AOS and GW. It became a Thing. People convinced themselves that points were the only way AOS could be saved, that it was the only way they could ever find happiness - but points weren't the only thing people hated about AOS. They hated EVERYTHING. It was said to be baby's first miniature game. They hated the rules, the stormcast, the setting, the price, the models, the fans, the destruction of WHFB, the campaign books, the battle tomes, the battalions, the silly abilities, the rulebook, GW's handling of it, and every other thing about it.

How did points become the One True Problem from which everything bad about AOS revolved? Easy. It was the only thing which time couldn't heal. All the other things were improving (or at least time had quelled the rage). The stormcast, the rules, the battle tomes, the models, and so on. But it still didn't have points. GW giving AOS points isn't an admission of failure - it was a compromise. They finally gave players what they asked for, after fixing everything else first, and suddenly, they were all out of excuses to dismiss the game.

Points didn't turn AOS into something that it wasn't. It is barely a change. It was just the last in a long line of improvements that made AOS into a more palatable game for a broader audience. And all those improvements ended up making 40k into exactly the game it needed to be. If 40k came out with those rules before AOS was a thing, it would've had an entirely different response. Even a year earlier, the idea that 8th edition would be AOS-ified was told as a horror story to scare children. But because AOS took the time to improve and win people over, it meant that 40k wasn't just starting with more refined rules, it also started with the understanding that AOS took years to build.

40k could've gone in a completely different direction. It could've been real bad, and everybody that had abandoned GW during 6th and 7th would've continued feeling justified in doing so. But instead, it was a resounding success. So I guess AOS didn't save GW. It saved 40k. And in doing so, saved GW.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Anyway, we'll give it a shot and ask these questions: How did AOS save GW? Do you have any financial/sales reports showing ANY miniature company dethroning GW from the #1 spot, and conversely it returning BECAUSE of the AOS initial release?

Ideologically, it saved GW. It set the direction for each one of their products since, and set the standards that GW, as a company, has come to be known by now. And ideologically, AOS (and 40k) seem to embody the beliefs professed by Jervis in that article that keeps getting posted.

Ideologically? In a way, you're sort of right. The Open Sandbox style of composition that was first pioneered in Unbound over in 40K was doubled down upon in AOS. SINCE AOS's faulty start, that method of play is put in as taking a back seat as opposed to being the ONLY method of play. So in a way that you did NOT intend, AOS did indeed save GW ideologically. It made them realize that there at least needed to be a structural base, which ran contrary to what Jervis was preaching in that article.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Frankly, I don't know why you guys keep thinking I'm talking about financially, since as a player, I don't care about that kind of stuff at all. Whether GW's statements move up or down is ultimately worthless, as there's no way to know for sure what influenced this change and how much. It's all just speculation, and largely empty. You can say that GW's financials went down because AOS, but can you really say that? Can you say how much?

Frankly, financials are the most important part of this equation. If a company doesn't do well, such as Confrontation being clearanced out at retailers and cleared from distribution centers, then the gaming community attached to it does not do well. How many people are still playing Babylon 5's miniature game? Exactly.

For the record, there is most ASSUREDLY a way to know whether GW's financials influenced change in the game systems. The fact that 8th WFB's multitude of problems caused GW to consider simply killing the game before settling on AOS as a replacement is a great example. However, you want an example of financials changing the rules specifically, not totaling out a line, and that is honestly and easy one:

Space Marine Terminators.

Just in case you weren't around during this event, back in 3rd Edition 40K they ran an article in White Dwarf implementing a rules change to Space Marine Terminators, giving them a 5+ invulnerable save on top of their 2+ armor save. The reasoning behind it was given in a rather lengthy blurb explaining how plasma weaponry was becoming highly prevalent in armies specifically to deal with Terminators, and because of the ease of death to said weapons, people stopped running/buying Terminators. They explicitly stated as much in the article, that sales drove the rules change. If that's a good example, which I think it is, then wouldn't the GHB also be a good example?

As far as can we say how much? Enough to put out the General's Handbook. Enough to start putting bundles out that legitimately saved gamers money.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Financially, I have no idea how well AOS did. Not exactly. It wasn't an abject failure, despite how badly a lot of people wanted it to be. It wasn't a run away success either. But it made more money than WHFB, and had the potential for growth that WHFB didn't have. And it was growing with each new release. It didn't start out perfect, but with each refinement, more and more people were getting into it - especially with the new armies like with the Sylvaneth, Fyreslayers, Everchosen, and Ironjawz. Hell, I think the Stormcast were a lot more popular than people give them credit for here.

Want had nothing to do with AOS's poor performance out the gate. I could want the newest Deadpool movie to fail because of personal grievances/whatever, and it wouldn't matter because the general movie goer liked and supported the film with their wallets. Bottom line is that people didn't warm up to AOS for almost a year after its release, and that'd be a death knell for any other gaming company. GW, however, had the brand power to stave the wound until they could patch it with the GHB.

As far as outselling WFB, are we talking WFB at the height of their sales, are we talking in the trough when they were considering cancelling it, or are we talking End Times when WFB sales almost quadrupled?


And as far as "I think" or "I feel" goes, we're dealing with stats and facts. Your adoration for the rule set is well documented, as is your detestation of the set(s) that came before it. Irrelevant in this debate. Bring facts and not opinions. The LTD ED Army Books for AOS not selling well at all despite having half the production run of the WFB ones that DID sell out has nothing to do with "feelings" or opinions, it is an undisputable fact.

 Sqorgar wrote:
The question is, did the GHB turn the tide or not? I don't think we can know for sure. I mean, we can say that public opinion certainly improved, here, but it was already improving. The destruction of WHFB was no longer a festering wound, but a healing scar. Early issues with the AOS setting were getting ironed out as more fiction was released. People were coming up with new structures to define their games, refining games based on wounds/warscrolls and providing multiple point systems - even adding campaign rules (Paths to Glory, Hinterlands). FAQs were released that cleared up various ambiguities in the rules.

Setting is irrelevant. Fiction is irrelevant The fact that people WERE coming up with comps so readily states that people were trying to make it work, but it wasn't until an official comp came out by way of the GHB that the ship turned around.

 Sqorgar wrote:
The time was right for people to form a second opinion on AOS, and the GHB gave them the excuse to do so. But there's no doubt in my mind that if the GHB had been released a year earlier, it wouldn't have had nearly the impact that it did. People weren't ready to forgive AOS then.

The time was right to include all the people who favor structured gaming, the very same people that stayed OUT of AOS because of the lack of official comp or structure. The real deal is that GW didn't think that they'd bleed out more players/customers than they'd take in. This was a major miscalculation as those veteran players were what GW relied on to get new blood into their games in the first place. "Forgive" had nothing to do with it, and yet again caters to the "feels" thing that guides every aspect of your argument here.

 Sqorgar wrote:
The points thing just became a lightning rod for all the frustrations people had about AOS and GW. It became a Thing. People convinced themselves that points were the only way AOS could be saved, that it was the only way they could ever find happiness - but points weren't the only thing people hated about AOS. They hated EVERYTHING. It was said to be baby's first miniature game. They hated the rules, the stormcast, the setting, the price, the models, the fans, the destruction of WHFB, the campaign books, the battle tomes, the battalions, the silly abilities, the rulebook, GW's handling of it, and every other thing about it.

Okay, once you get away from the hyperbole and reliance on "feels" and the "other side" suffering from "wrongthink" about a game you thought was perfect, you find that they stated that there were a grocery list of issues present. Is it possible that the GHB fixed more than just points? Craziness, right? The real issue is that "Three Ways To Play" became a thing at THAT point when it should have been in there all along. Breeze past that all you want to attempt to shame those that didn't simply play it "your" way, but the fact remains that player involvement and player purchases increased as soon as the GHB came into play and was reviewed.

 Sqorgar wrote:
How did points become the One True Problem from which everything bad about AOS revolved? Easy. It was the only thing which time couldn't heal. All the other things were improving (or at least time had quelled the rage). The stormcast, the rules, the battle tomes, the models, and so on. But it still didn't have points. GW giving AOS points isn't an admission of failure - it was a compromise. They finally gave players what they asked for, after fixing everything else first, and suddenly, they were all out of excuses to dismiss the game.

lol No, it wasn't just about points. AOS was a completely different game. Period. The points issue was a critique about the game design, along with several others.

What they finally gave was the ability for people who play the game in ways other than CAAC to be able to play.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Points didn't turn AOS into something that it wasn't. It is barely a change. It was just the last in a long line of improvements that made AOS into a more palatable game for a broader audience. And all those improvements ended up making 40k into exactly the game it needed to be. If 40k came out with those rules before AOS was a thing, it would've had an entirely different response. Even a year earlier, the idea that 8th edition would be AOS-ified was told as a horror story to scare children. But because AOS took the time to improve and win people over, it meant that 40k wasn't just starting with more refined rules, it also started with the understanding that AOS took years to build.

You're half right. Points changed the structure of the forces insofar as restoring a balanced match up (mostly), but the game mechanics stayed the same. And yeah, changing 40K to the exact style of game that AOS was REGARDLESS of which came first would have been disastrous. 40K was already bleeding out because of 7th, doubling down on the aspects of 7th that made the game unplayable would have been suicide.

Past that, we'll ignore you sensationalist hyperbole despite definitely seeing a theme.

 Sqorgar wrote:
40k could've gone in a completely different direction. It could've been real bad, and everybody that had abandoned GW during 6th and 7th would've continued feeling justified in doing so. But instead, it was a resounding success. So I guess AOS didn't save GW. It saved 40k. And in doing so, saved GW.

Once again, you're half right. 8th Edition 40K didn't go full AOS primarily based on how turbulent AOS's initial launch and first year went. They basically tried to find the EXACT amount of AOSing that 40K would tolerate, and if sales are any indication currently, they made the right decision to NOT ape AOS completely.

 Just Tony wrote:
It made them realize that there at least needed to be a structural base, which ran contrary to what Jervis was preaching in that article.

That's such a gross misrepresentation of the article it's not even funny. Given that people might read your dreck and take it as truth, maybe I can save a few of them: in the article in question, Jervis Johnson explains that he enjoys and personally promotes points-structured, symmetrical tournament-style play. He goes on to explain that he feels that this type of play is becoming dominant (as of 2002) at the expense of other, more free-form narrative styles of play which he also enjoys, and that he would like to preserve that style of play somehow before it disappears.

What I'd really recommend is that people actually read the article. It's on page 2 of this thread and it's quite reasonable.

But AOS also did nothing to preserve free-form narrative play.

Narrative play needs more than just a rules system without force limitations. It needs everything that you would put into making a tabletop RPG scenario. It needs a story, it needs scenario structures, it needs to be flexible to account for unexpected events occurring during the game etc.

The AOS rules, as they were released initially, had nothing to help anyone construct a narrative game.

For a warhammer example, the 4th edition 40K rulebook had sections at the back giving advice on ways to run campaigns including different campaign types (tree campaigns vs map campaigns), rules for unit advancement during the campaign, rules for units becoming depleted during the campaign and requiring reinforcement, ideas for how to customise your models to account for their progression through the campaign (warboss acquiring more heads for his bosspole and getting better equipment as he fought in more battles and stuff like that). That book also included the rules for Kill Team, another narrative based system.

You can't just throw out a rules system with no structure and pass it off as a "narrative game". Narrative games need more instruction in order to play them than a pick up game and if you want that style of gameplay to survive then you should put that extra work in to give players the tools and knowledge they need to play narrative based games.

Whilst he seems like an amiable enough chap I think his preferred methodology is very much of the early RPG with a splash of 'narrative' from Historical wargamers when players were expected to hack, bodge and tweak rules to their liking without having everything laid out for them to get the gaming experience they wanted

Unfortunately this doesn't really sell rulebooks and armies, hence the more rigid and regulated systems GW current makes, and of course you can house rule these but thats not really what GW promotes these days

Well. Seems JJ is the one that designed Kill Team...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But AOS also did nothing to preserve free-form narrative play.

Narrative play needs more than just a rules system without force limitations. It needs everything that you would put into making a tabletop RPG scenario. It needs a narrative, it needs scenario structures, it needs to be flexible to account for unexpected events occurring during the game etc.

The AOS rules, as they were released initially, had nothing to help anyone construct a narrative game.

For a warhammer example, the 4th edition 40K rulebook had sections at the back giving advice on ways to run campaigns including different campaign types (tree campaigns vs map campaigns), rules for unit advancement during the campaign, rules for units becoming depleted during the campaign and requiring reinforcement, ideas for how to customise your models to account for their progression through the campaign (warboss acquiring more heads for his bosspole and getting better equipment as he fought in more battles and stuff like that). That book also included the rules for Kill Team, another narrative based system.

You can't just throw out a rules system with no structure and pass it off as a "narrative game". Narrative games need more instruction in order to play them than a pick up game and if you want that style of gameplay to survive then you should put that extra work in to give players the tools and knowledge they need to play narrative based games.

AoS has all that stuff now, fun fact.

Not that many people care though.

Just Tony wrote:It made them realize that there at least needed to be a structural base, which ran contrary to what Jervis was preaching in that article.

It had a structural base - it's just the nobody liked it. The 4 pages of rules talked about taking turns putting down models. The campaign books had stories + scenarios. GW's events recommended a number of warscrolls + wounds. It's just that this community lives in fear of power gamers (what if they bring 8 bloodletters? *shudder*) and felt that this structure wasn't strong enough to curb their abusive tendencies - completely unaware that points are where power gamers get their abusive tendencies.

Frankly, financials are the most important part of this equation. If a company doesn't do well, such as Confrontation being clearanced out at retailers and cleared from distribution centers, then the gaming community attached to it does not do well. How many people are still playing Babylon 5's miniature game? Exactly.

But people are saying that AOS tanked, and yet it was never in danger of being cleared out or unsupported. It got more support in its first year than any other miniature game out there. Pretty good for an abject failure that nobody was buying. By your own standards, AOS did well enough. I'm not sure you can make claims beyond that.

They explicitly stated as much in the article, that sales drove the rules change. If that's a good example, which I think it is, then wouldn't the GHB also be a good example?

Of course sales can be the impetus for change, but we can never know how much. Were points added to AOS because the sales were bad, because GW was responding to fan input, or because they felt the GHB's three ways to play was more ideologically in line with their open sandbox design philosophy? Honestly, it was probably all three, but we can't say for sure because we weren't there and GW has never said.

Personally, I think GW is more ideologically driven now than financial driven. I think that was GW's major change, and it was a good one that rewarded them with exceedingly better financials. But the changes GW made were not made out of a cynical attempt to squeeze more money out of the playerbase (like Kirby's years), but out of a legitimate desire to make better games.

As far as outselling WFB, are we talking WFB at the height of their sales, are we talking in the trough when they were considering cancelling it, or are we talking End Times when WFB sales almost quadrupled?

I have to assume that from GW's perspective, it wasn't a comparison to previous years, but to projections for upcoming years. As in, AOS sold better than they expected WHFB to sell in the same time frame. And come on, be honest, you know it is true too.

Setting is irrelevant. Fiction is irrelevant The fact that people WERE coming up with comps so readily states that people were trying to make it work, but it wasn't until an official comp came out by way of the GHB that the ship turned around.

The official comp was based on a fan one. It wasn't even that the GHB gave us something we didn't have, it just put an official seal of approval on it. People didn't need the structure. They needed the permission.

Also, I know a lot of people who would argue that setting and fiction are the most relevant parts of these games.

A Town Called Malus wrote:But AOS also did nothing to preserve free-form narrative play.

Narrative play needs more than just a rules system without force limitations. It needs everything that you would put into making a tabletop RPG scenario. It needs a story, it needs scenario structures, it needs to be flexible to account for unexpected events occurring during the game etc.

The AOS rules, as they were released initially, had nothing to help anyone construct a narrative game.

That's not entirely true. It had 5 big hardback rulebooks, each with a half dozen narrative scenarios. The rulebooks were designed around telling a few pages of story, then a scenario based on that story. You could play the scenarios using any armies, but you could also draw from the story on the proceeding pages in order to recreate these famous battles. MongooseMatt often did, and his battle reports were fun to read. AOS was primarily a narrative game at the beginning.

Force-on-Force/Tomorrow's War does not have a point system at all and it works great as a game. I am sure there are others that do not have a point system as well but those were the first two that came to my mind. Therefore, games do no need a point system to "work".

They are just another tool in a designers (and players) tool box to help them make games.

Also, I think we established that Jervis still works at GW, so maybe we can start a new thread about Points systems and if AoS saved GW.