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.

 Bewareofthephil wrote:

 WarMill wrote:
Been following this thread with interest and since everyone else is piling in, figured I might as well .

I think this game is exactly what I want and I'll explain why, but whether I'd be able to find anyone else to play it with me remains to be seen.
[...]
So what's the conclusion if you bothered reading all that? AoS may just be the casual relaxing hobby I've been missing, and if it's an absolute anathema to competitive players that's ok by me because I'm not one of them. Sweet models, easy access, no hefty rules to lug about, just rock up and plonk some models down. That'll do nicely.

Now feel free to call me a casual scrub idiot

I'm the same! Ultra casual player, with not much time for massive complicated battles or money for large 200+ model armies. AoS looks built for me. Just paint up my models, pop them in a case and take them down for a fun game in the afternoon. This game caters nicely to our crowd.

Although I think they should release a "Warhammer Legacy" rulebook as a final hurrah for WHFB that integrates the full End Times rules (without needing to buy all 5 books) as an optional mode of play for those who want to play the hardcore game. If they kept the square bases and round bases in each product, and keep the rulebook on the shelf, WHFB gamers can continue playing forever.

I am with you on this, for me this is ideal. I can buy/paint two armies that I enjoy the look of and then my wife (who has never played any tabletop games but wants to casually) can sit down for an hour at night after the kids are asleep and have a game or do the same thing with mates over beers. Once my kids get old enough I can sit down with them and have a game without to much complication.

What will make or break this game is if there is nothing else. This game alone wont sell the big models or move enough boxes to support the production lines, this game is a great way to introduce new people and get them having fun but after they have 50 to 100 models they will stop buying as they dont need more stuff to play or they want a bigger army experience and go elsewhere. The sales rep who supposedly said no more rules I believe was referring to Age of Sigmar not any other game and I think that there will be an expansion of sorts or a new game to support the mass battle/complex system similar to the old WHFB. A number of rumour mongers have said 9th is coming (whether its called 9th or something else I dont know) including Harry as recently as a week or so ago so I still believe that is coming.

Disagree with me all you like, I will wait until the end of this Fantasy release block (until Sept/Oct I heard) and if things aren't clearer by then I will walk away if I am not happy with it.

Norsed wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?

I think your definition is very subjective and limiting. As I mentioned before, historic games are very narrative in nature yet players do very much care if they win or lose the battle. What's the point in playing a game if you know that you're going to lose or win before you even begin?

Because the end result is not the entire enjoyment of the game? Besides which, nothing is ever set in stone. Just because the game is balanced in favour of one side over the other does not necessarily mean that side will win.

By definition a game with two opposing sides is a competitive game. If this were completely a narrative game, two players would be working together toward a common goal, cooperative. Games like this exist but even these games have a winner or loser. If there's not competitive component, there is literally no point to have rules or a game, just plop your models on the table and move them around, removing models when you feel the need. Story-time but with toy soldiers; kind of how I used to play with green army men when I was 5 years old.

I suppose many of the posters on this forum have just as hard a time understanding how you perceive the game as you do in understanding that all games are competitive.

 insaniak wrote:

overtyrant wrote:


While I don't condone GW actions GW is a British company not an American company so yes they should set the policy (no matter how poor/ridiculous they are) and have the main HQ n home ground.

It's not quite that simple. Stuff that works in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. The US market is very different to the UK, and trying to run it the same as the UK is pretty much doomed to fail .

Exactly this.

Go back a decade. I was playing a game of WFB with the head of Trade Sales, (still get in games, he just isn't at GW anymore), and he was complaining about the UK staff not getting it. He told me that the US, in particular US independent stores were the most profitable part of GW that year. But since the UK has a pitiful amount of FLGS, and hundreds of GW stores, the UK doesn't take independent stores seriously. They also arent as large a store as we have in the US, and don't run the leagues, tournaments, and other activities we have here that drive sales. They certainly don't seek our opinion on anything. They don't even listen to their US employees.

Get a beer or two into on of the US guys and you'll find out they hate the Disinformation policies and crappy marketing as much as US retailers do. And the UK policies are frustrating to them because they can't do their jobs.

Nonsense. Adversity is the thrust of most narratives. You can absolutely tell a story whilst not cooperating to tell it. Weird post.

Norsed wrote:
No. Caring about winning and being a narrative player are mutually exclusive. What the person in question actually brought up, not so much.

So very wrong on so many levels. You can care about narrative AND winning simultaneously.

I build lists for a variety of games based on what I want to see on the table that fits the story I want to tell. Back in 3rd 40k when Terminators didn't have an invulnerable save, I still fielded them because they were a unit I liked and it fit with the narrative I had for my Marine Chapter. When I build WW2 armies or Fantasy forces I try to have the story of that army worked out and build around that idea. As an example, my VC army was lead by a Blood Dragon Vampire (back when bloodlines existed) and thus didn't include Zombies because the general didn't want "peasant scum" in his ranks and there were scads of Grave Guard in the list instead. This is a HUGE downside on the table, because zombies are great tarpits, and GG chew up points. Lacking bats/wolves made the army very slow, etc.

Now, even with that "sub-optimal" makeup, if I put it on the table I'm trying my best to win no matter how unlikely that outcome is going to be. My opponent didn't sign up to help my write a novel; he came to play a game. If we can tell a story about the game afterwards that's fine, but I'm not going to insult another gamer by flitting about and making intentionally bad moves because "it's in character that he got distracted by a shiny quarter." Even if I know he's gotten me beat by the list he put on the table before the first move is made, you still TRY to win. Never give an opponent less than your best effort, even if you're completely outclassed.

I have a feeling that within the wargaming community, 'competitive' has become such a loaded word that it only seems to refer to 'WAAC TFGs' for some people.

From Warseer. Season to taste.

I have an friend that works a at small web development company in the EU. His company was contracted to develop a website which maintained a database of input values to determine a team or in this case armies value. He thought this was for an online football "soccer for us in North America" fantasy league. He didn't know anything about GW or their business. GW apparently supplied the unit values this week with names and he A and B together.

So each month we players will pay a fee to use GW's army builder. Model points will not be available the army value will determined by an algorithm using the GW's weightings.

This allows GW to control their information and stop online sharing of their product illegally. It also allows the company to change the game if they notice balance issues more rapidly.

During tournaments organizers will have to authenticate each person that signs up to verify that they have a valid subscription.

This explains why rules will now be free while creating a monthly revenue stream for GW.

Oh dear Nurgle... If this hobby wasn't expensive enough already... If this is true, of course.

Norsed wrote:

Spoiler:

 streamdragon wrote:

Norsed wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

Norsed wrote:Who said mutually exclusive?

You did

Norsed wrote:If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.

Emphasis mine.

No. Caring about winning and being a narrative player are mutually exclusive. What you actually brought up, not so much.

Just so we're clear, I didn't bring up anything. I simply answered your question. There is nothing mutually exclusive about wanting to win a game and being a narrative player. I can show up to a game mimicking the Second Battle for Armageddon with the worst Ork list imaginable (and I do make terrible lists full of bad units that I love) and still want to win. The two things have literally nothing to do with each other.

Personally I would disagree, I guess we both have different views on what makes a narrative player. However, the bit where mutually exclusive came up was not in reference to narrative gamers at the time.

Define "narrative player" for me then (or redefine if you've explained and I missed it). Examples would be helpful. I know that sounds snarky, but it is an honest request.

ShaneTB wrote:
From Warseer. Season to taste.

I have an friend that works a at small web development company in the EU. His company was contracted to develop a website which maintained a database of input values to determine a team or in this case armies value. He thought this was for an online football "soccer for us in North America" fantasy league. He didn't know anything about GW or their business. GW apparently supplied the unit values this week with names and he A and B together.

So each month we players will pay a fee to use GW's army builder. Model points will not be available the army value will determined by an algorithm using the GW's weightings.

This allows GW to control their information and stop online sharing of their product illegally. It also allows the company to change the game if they notice balance issues more rapidly.

During tournaments organizers will have to authenticate each person that signs up to verify that they have a valid subscription.

This explains why rules will now be free while creating a monthly revenue stream for GW.

Wow, if that's true then this IS the worst rules system ever.

Norsed wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:


Wouldn't that yeti tactical narrative battle be 10 times better if you could count the disparity between forces? You can still make your narrative battle in a balanced system and as a bonus you have an information for that douche narrative player (and I met and played a few) who makes an unbalanced scenario and then acts like it's his wits alone that provided him victory. Same time I'd have a game that is not a group therapy session for sensible people but one where superior strategy and tactics lead to victory.

It might be, but points systems are rarely accurate enough. Better to take a look at the stats and get an approximation.

How is that douche of a narrative player any different to the douche of a WAAC player (and I met and played a few) who brings the beardiest list imaginable taking full advantage of GW's wonky and unworkable points system and his knowledge of his opponents forces to create an unbeatable monster of an army and then acts like his strategy and tactics are superior? Protip - if a player is crowing victory they aren't a narrative player. Or indeed someone I'd care to play with. It's about how you play, not whether you win or lose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:


Didn't you call someone's valid opinion silly and imply that only complete dicks have problem with such a ruleset? Double standards ftw.

No. I called someone's statement of "want to play any army? Hope your opponent will not counter it by just playing his army." silly. Because it is. It's a completely nonsensical statement.

And I implied that if someone brings 30 bloodthirsters to fight with 10 spearmen, that person is indeed a dick. Nothing to do with whether you like this ruleset or not.

1. It's better to look at stats and get an approximation for you maybe. Do you expect a fresh group of gamers to do that? Not everyone plays historicals on regular basis and have tons of games played hence points. Without them, for said group the game will be exercise in futility

I think people expected something more than typical GW balance, especialy if the ruleset is simplified, what's the point of total reboot if it keeps one of the most glaring issues of old. Which is ironic to 11 btw if the no balance thing turns out to be true.

In a balanced ruleset you would have much better chances to win through superior tactics with the guy you described. That's the point.

Not sure what is wrong with playing to win. I too am happier when I lose but made some brilliant maneuver than when I just win by the numbers but win as an ultimate objective is a key for a game to be a mind test I expect.

2. I get that statement.

And if GW didnt write that atrocius rules (assuming the no balance thing is true), we wouldnt even talk about this absurd blodthirsters example. It's easy I guess to write a crap game and expect players to take responsibility to make it work, sure rules are supposedly free now but it's named warhammer, shouldnt they be ashamed to publish a a straight play what you want simpleton under the name?

I tend to blame the rules not players.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nonsense. Adversity is the thrust of most narratives. You can absolutely tell a story whilst not cooperating to tell it. Weird post.

Did you actually read the post I was responding to? The poster believes that anyone who is playing to win is not a narrative player; I was attempting to understand his thinking within the context of that statement.

I don't think there's anything wrong with being casual or competitive, and if both players are the same fun is had. Where issues arise is when you have a competitive person playing a casual person because both want something different from the game and neither is going to get it. I think a lot of the reason GW is so polarizing is because both types of player could lay claim to their way being the right way. Given no other requirement for a game than bring a 2000pt army, the netlisting WAAC gamer has exactly the same claim to the moral high ground as the player who insists that you can't bring 3 cannons because the fluff clearly states that army only had access to 2 cannons from the foundries of Who-gives-a-damn, and because GW simply has such a huge reach compared to other games these conflicts are going to happen a lot more often than smaller games that market themselves to a specific type of gamer.

GW has been pretty open in past years about moving away from the competitive scene, and AoS does seem to be GW's effort to tilt their marketing in favour of casual or narrative gaming.

 TheWaspinator wrote:

ShaneTB wrote:
From Warseer. Season to taste.

I have an friend that works a at small web development company in the EU. His company was contracted to develop a website which maintained a database of input values to determine a team or in this case armies value. He thought this was for an online football "soccer for us in North America" fantasy league. He didn't know anything about GW or their business. GW apparently supplied the unit values this week with names and he A and B together.

So each month we players will pay a fee to use GW's army builder. Model points will not be available the army value will determined by an algorithm using the GW's weightings.

This allows GW to control their information and stop online sharing of their product illegally. It also allows the company to change the game if they notice balance issues more rapidly.

During tournaments organizers will have to authenticate each person that signs up to verify that they have a valid subscription.

This explains why rules will now be free while creating a monthly revenue stream for GW.

Wow, if that's true then this IS the worst rules system ever.

Call BS on this since GW hasn't supported or even admitted that tournaments exist in years...

 agnosto wrote:

Norsed wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?

I think your definition is very subjective and limiting. As I mentioned before, historic games are very narrative in nature yet players do very much care if they win or lose the battle. What's the point in playing a game if you know that you're going to lose or win before you even begin?

Because the end result is not the entire enjoyment of the game? Besides which, nothing is ever set in stone. Just because the game is balanced in favour of one side over the other does not necessarily mean that side will win.

By definition a game with two opposing sides is a competitive game. If this were completely a narrative game, two players would be working together toward a common goal, cooperative. Games like this exist but even these games have a winner or loser. If there's not competitive component, there is literally no point to have rules or a game, just plop your models on the table and move them around, removing models when you feel the need. Story-time but with toy soldiers; kind of how I used to play with green army men when I was 5 years old.

I suppose many of the posters on this forum have just as hard a time understanding how you perceive the game as you do in understanding that all games are competitive.

Of course it has a competitive element, it's a game about war. But it's an element that shouldn't take over the whole experience. My problem is with the concept of balance. Balance is impossible, even with a points system. And imbalance is an inherent element of war. The enemy might be more powerful than you, or weaker. Strategy involves taking that into account and trying to do the best you can with what you have in the right place at the right time. If you don't win against a superior force, so be it, you tried your best.

ShaneTB wrote:
From Warseer. Season to taste.

I have an friend that works a at small web development company in the EU. His company was contracted to develop a website which maintained a database of input values to determine a team or in this case armies value. He thought this was for an online football "soccer for us in North America" fantasy league. He didn't know anything about GW or their business. GW apparently supplied the unit values this week with names and he A and B together.

So each month we players will pay a fee to use GW's army builder. Model points will not be available the army value will determined by an algorithm using the GW's weightings.

This allows GW to control their information and stop online sharing of their product illegally. It also allows the company to change the game if they notice balance issues more rapidly.

During tournaments organizers will have to authenticate each person that signs up to verify that they have a valid subscription.

This explains why rules will now be free while creating a monthly revenue stream for GW.

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

 WarMill wrote:
I don't think there's anything wrong with being casual or competitive, and if both players are the same fun is had. Where issues arise is when you have a competitive person playing a casual person because both want something different from the game and neither is going to get it. I think a lot of the reason GW is so polarizing is because both types of player could lay claim to their way being the right way. Given no other requirement for a game than bring a 2000pt army, the netlisting WAAC gamer has exactly the same claim to the moral high ground as the player who insists that you can't bring 3 cannons because the fluff clearly states that army only had access to 2 cannons from the foundries of Who-gives-a-damn, and because GW simply has such a huge reach compared to other games these conflicts are going to happen a lot more often than smaller games that market themselves to a specific type of gamer.

GW has been pretty open in past years about moving away from the competitive scene, and AoS does seem to be GW's effort to tilt their marketing in favour of casual or narrative gaming.

Well said but to make matters worse, there are layers of complexity to these people. A casual player, I consider myself one, may still like to win a game against an opponent and want a balanced rule-set so when he does play, he's not wasting valuable, limited game time working out a gentleman's agreement.

I agree that there is no right or wrong here but I also strongly agree that a tight rule-set benefits all players equally regardless of their expectations.

Again, it's always one little thing. Get rid of the subscription and that would be great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, it might be time to take the 'Competitive vs Casual' debate to another thread.

 Grimtuff wrote:

ShaneTB wrote:
From Warseer. Season to taste.

I have an friend that works a at small web development company in the EU. His company was contracted to develop a website which maintained a database of input values to determine a team or in this case armies value. He thought this was for an online football "soccer for us in North America" fantasy league. He didn't know anything about GW or their business. GW apparently supplied the unit values this week with names and he A and B together.

So each month we players will pay a fee to use GW's army builder. Model points will not be available the army value will determined by an algorithm using the GW's weightings.

This allows GW to control their information and stop online sharing of their product illegally. It also allows the company to change the game if they notice balance issues more rapidly.

During tournaments organizers will have to authenticate each person that signs up to verify that they have a valid subscription.

This explains why rules will now be free while creating a monthly revenue stream for GW.

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

And yet, this is something that people in regards to 40k have mentioned as a solution as it would probably be cheaper than the constant codex churn. If the fee is $5 a month for point values that's a codex a year out of people and keeps the overall cost for the player down but increases overall sales as more people participate.

That being said I'm not sure how the hell that would work without actual set values in the system itself but I'm not a tech guy. Also sounds to far out of the box for GW (though this whole release seems to have been out of the box). Meh, we'll see.

 agnosto wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?

I think your definition is very subjective and limiting. As I mentioned before, historic games are very narrative in nature yet players do very much care if they win or lose the battle. What's the point in playing a game if you know that you're going to lose or win before you even begin?

I've hosted a ton of historical narrative games at my shop. We'll spend a day setting up a 6 foot x 30 foot table and play "A bridge too Far" with 10 players over two days, or a D-day landing or romans vs celts.

And every single person playing from 16 -65 wants to win.

Norsed wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Norsed wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?

I think your definition is very subjective and limiting. As I mentioned before, historic games are very narrative in nature yet players do very much care if they win or lose the battle. What's the point in playing a game if you know that you're going to lose or win before you even begin?

Because the end result is not the entire enjoyment of the game? Besides which, nothing is ever set in stone. Just because the game is balanced in favour of one side over the other does not necessarily mean that side will win.

By definition a game with two opposing sides is a competitive game. If this were completely a narrative game, two players would be working together toward a common goal, cooperative. Games like this exist but even these games have a winner or loser. If there's not competitive component, there is literally no point to have rules or a game, just plop your models on the table and move them around, removing models when you feel the need. Story-time but with toy soldiers; kind of how I used to play with green army men when I was 5 years old.

I suppose many of the posters on this forum have just as hard a time understanding how you perceive the game as you do in understanding that all games are competitive.

Of course it has a competitive element, it's a game about war. But it's an element that shouldn't take over the whole experience. My problem is with the concept of balance. Balance is impossible, even with a points system. And imbalance is an inherent element of war. The enemy might be more powerful than you, or weaker. Strategy involves taking that into account and trying to do the best you can with what you have in the right place at the right time. If you don't win against a superior force, so be it, you tried your best.

It's a warGAME first, warSTORY second. You can play like that but stop pushing it on others.

Norsed wrote:

Of course it has a competitive element, it's a game about war. But it's an element that shouldn't take over the whole experience. My problem is with the concept of balance. Balance is impossible, even with a points system. And imbalance is an inherent element of war. The enemy might be more powerful than you, or weaker. Strategy involves taking that into account and trying to do the best you can with what you have in the right place at the right time. If you don't win against a superior force, so be it, you tried your best.

Again, you're describing historical wargaming to a tee because we're talking about a game here, not actual war; I've never been able to look at GW miniatures and suspend disbelief enough to envision these sometimes silly looking figures actually fighting on a field of battle.

I suppose that we'll differ here, and that's fine, because I think that once you determine that you have zero chance of winning a game, there's little point in continuing to play. I've played games where my opponent got a powerful spell off, for example, and I lost a large portion of my army; in my mind it was much better to pull everything off the table at that point and run another game. That said, I have little time to game and would derive more enjoyment from a match in which both sides are more evenly matched so that there is at least a reason to continue.

UKS wrote:


. Look at baseball cards, comics, etc, and how they are dead or dying.

Clearly you haven't been in a comic book shop lately. Comics dying? Give over.

@ agnosto

Oh absolutely, I just used extremes to illustrate a point. Nothing wrong with being either type of player, myself I tend heavily towards casual so I wouldn't waste my or the other player's time if they want a balls-out competitive game, what would be the point? My favourite games have always been the most closely fought, and I think my chances of getting that kind of game are higher if the game we're playing already favours 'my' type of player.

I just reckon that with the way AoS is looking if someone wants a game there's going to be a higher chance that they'll tend towards the casual end of the spectrum

@ nudibranch

yeah probably past the point of relevance as far as this thread goes.

 mikhaila wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?

I think your definition is very subjective and limiting. As I mentioned before, historic games are very narrative in nature yet players do very much care if they win or lose the battle. What's the point in playing a game if you know that you're going to lose or win before you even begin?

I've hosted a ton of historical narrative games at my shop. We'll spend a day setting up a 6 foot x 30 foot table and play "A bridge too Far" with 10 players over two days, or a D-day landing or romans vs celts.

And every single person playing from 16 -65 wants to win.

I was trying to see things his way and historicals were the only thing that I could remotely fathom where winning wouldn't be as strong a motivator for enjoyment as the multitude of other games. Is there a better example? I suppose Munchkin comes close but there's a winner there....uh, cards against humanity? Deck-building games? No, all of these have winners and losers. I don't know, maybe I just don't get it.

I dont think the army builder app is true but if so, I'll eat my socks from laughter when it gets cracked. And it will lol.

Norsed wrote:
And if you are playing with someone who spams 30 bloodthirsters at your 10 spearmen, well then I suggest you find someone else to play with.

What? You've never heard the Legend of the Ten Spearmen? Once upon a time there were ten spearmen out on patrol and out of nowhere they were ambushed by thirty bloodthirsters! The ten spearmen fought gallantly but alas they all died pretty much instantly.

Now I spent quite a sum of money on these 30 bloodthirsters and as a narrative gamer you are honor bound to help me reenact the spearmen's heroic last stand so get out your spearmen and let's play!

 Krinsath wrote:

Norsed wrote:
No. Caring about winning and being a narrative player are mutually exclusive. What the person in question actually brought up, not so much.

So very wrong on so many levels. You can care about narrative AND winning simultaneously.

I build lists for a variety of games based on what I want to see on the table that fits the story I want to tell. Back in 3rd 40k when Terminators didn't have an invulnerable save, I still fielded them because they were a unit I liked and it fit with the narrative I had for my Marine Chapter. When I build WW2 armies or Fantasy forces I try to have the story of that army worked out and build around that idea. As an example, my VC army was lead by a Blood Dragon Vampire (back when bloodlines existed) and thus didn't include Zombies because the general didn't want "peasant scum" in his ranks and there were scads of Grave Guard in the list instead. This is a HUGE downside on the table, because zombies are great tarpits, and GG chew up points. Lacking bats/wolves made the army very slow, etc.

Now, even with that "sub-optimal" makeup, if I put it on the table I'm trying my best to win no matter how unlikely that outcome is going to be. My opponent didn't sign up to help my write a novel; he came to play a game. If we can tell a story about the game afterwards that's fine, but I'm not going to insult another gamer by flitting about and making intentionally bad moves because "it's in character that he got distracted by a shiny quarter." Even if I know he's gotten me beat by the list he put on the table before the first move is made, you still TRY to win. Never give an opponent less than your best effort, even if you're completely outclassed.

See, that's not what I'd call narrative gaming. Not that I'm saying you're having badwrongfun or playing wrong, but I would call that competitive gaming albeit with an army that has narrative elements. To me, narrative gaming involves all players involved in the game signing up to enjoy a story enfolding on the tabletop in front of them - it helps if you have a referee and a great scenario with all sorts of unknown elements but even two player games can be narrative. "it's in character that he got distracted by a shiny quarter." is, of course, silly. But ideally the characters should have character and therefore be able to played in character. And if every character has got their own secret objective, all the better. Does this sound like roleplaying? Why, yes, it does a little. All of the key concepts for roleplaying games developed from wargames. This is not a new thing - it is a very old thing and how many more people played until tournaments became the main driving force behind wargaming.

 agnosto wrote:


I was trying to see things his way and historicals were the only thing that I could remotely fathom where winning wouldn't be as strong a motivator for enjoyment as the multitude of other games. Is there a better example? I suppose Munchkin comes close but there's a winner there....uh, cards against humanity? Deck-building games? No, all of these have winners and losers. I don't know, maybe I just don't get it.

There is nothing TO get. He's just confused. I would much rather play a scenario driven, unbalanced, narrative game (eg Skirmish Sangin) than an equal points "who is the "best" player" slug fest. That doesnt mean I don't want to win. Of COURSE I want to win. I'm a human being, thats what we're designed to want.

What he is getting confused about is wanting to win regardless of the cost to your opponents enjoyment (the very core of WAAC). I want to win almost every game I play (except games Im teaching to someone) but I want them to have fun too.

ShaneTB wrote:
From Warseer. Season to taste.

I have an friend that works a at small web development company in the EU. His company was contracted to develop a website which maintained a database of input values to determine a team or in this case armies value. He thought this was for an online football "soccer for us in North America" fantasy league. He didn't know anything about GW or their business. GW apparently supplied the unit values this week with names and he A and B together.

So each month we players will pay a fee to use GW's army builder. Model points will not be available the army value will determined by an algorithm using the GW's weightings.

This allows GW to control their information and stop online sharing of their product illegally. It also allows the company to change the game if they notice balance issues more rapidly.

During tournaments organizers will have to authenticate each person that signs up to verify that they have a valid subscription.

This explains why rules will now be free while creating a monthly revenue stream for GW.

That's actually horribly interesting to me.

The whole "no points" crap bothered me the most because it was so intrinsically stupid from GW's point of view. It will sell less games, make less money.

That they might have some scheme to like this actually makes some sense.