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.

 agnosto wrote:
This is literally every historical game invented because the battles have happened and stories of what happened are known. Of course all the players are involved.

Pretty sure not every game involving late Republic legionaries has to be Gergovia. I don't consider narrative to be an inherent characteristic of historical games.

Weighing in slightly on this online database calculator - genuinely can't see that rumour being true.

The original rumour states it's one guy doing the input of the data, now presumably this would be the new models/army and the existing armies as the info we have so far does seem to point to relative support for the old armies in so much as, no new models coming your way but they'll be usable.

If any of you have ever played Football (Soccer) Manager it's a database driven game. The stats alone for one professional top division side would be a tear inducing spreadsheet. For example, every senior player will have around 30-40 visible and variable stats and then a number of other hidden attributes that impact on the play. Multiplty that by around 30 on average senior players, then the under 21 squads and then the junior squad and on average you're looking at 60 odd unique player profiles.

Now they're static in the respect that they all have the same attribute fields, it's just the values per player would change. With your AoS and Warhammer armies you're looking at every troop, HQ and vehicle type needing to be inputted for each army and then there will always be variables:

The rumoured AoS based idea would only have visible stat lines but presumably you'd need:

- Full profiles so movement, wounds, leadership etc etc.
- Front loaded weapon stats
- Then the potential to interchange weapon configurations
- Then the potential to add magic items (I guess?)

It's certainly something I think could be done but you're talking about building something gargantuan - I doubt they'll apply the resources needed to do this.

Could be wrong obviously but I just can't see it working without some major resources i.e. cash being thrown at it.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

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!

Hahaha! I love it!

 agnosto wrote:

Ok, now I'm really confused. I'm trying to understand your argument but you just contradicted yourself.

Was there a story involved? Was everyone in the game involved in that story? Why, yes they were. Therefore: narrative game.

This is literally every historical game invented because the battles have happened and stories of what happened are known. Of course all the players are involved.

At this point the only thing that I can think of is that you're talking about D&D now where there would be a completely fabricated story.

OH, I get it. I heard that the GW design team originally made 40K and WHFB as a kind of D&D-esque storytelling mechanism; I think this is what you're talking about.

There is no contradiction. Most 'historical' wargames these days are not played as refights of historical battles. Field of Glory, Flames of War, DBA and DBM, and most other commercially available systems mostly cater to the "pick up and play" crowd, with no scenario beyond a straight up fight. So no, those battles have not happened, and no the players in question are not involved in a story.

On the latter point, you aren't exactly correct, but meh close enough.

Narrative wargames of the style I'm talking about did not come from D&D - D&D came from narrative wargames. Tony Bath's Hyboria campaign, Braunstein, and the way in which many traditional club wargames were played was the precursor to Fantasy Wargaming.

Norsed wrote:
Quite possibly. That's certainly how I respond to the word competitive. Perhaps that is wrong of me.

It kinda is. There's a difference between being a more competitive player and just being a douchebag. "WAAC" generally refers to the latter, and a WAAC attitude isn't just about wanting to win really bad like some people believe, it includes really poor behavior like lying, cheating, bending and breaking the rules, in some cases even bullying or intimidating your opponent, literally doing anything it takes to win the game, and generally being unsportsmanlike in every way imaginable.

People hear the word "competitive" and immediately imagine the player I described above, when a "proper" competitive gamer is going to try their best to win, but does it without breaking the rules and being generally friendly and pleasant to play with.

Norsed wrote:
And I would say - not necesarily. But I would also say that expecting balance from any GW product is overly optimistic.

I don't think any of us are stupid enough to expect balance from GW anymore...but we kinda deserve balance for the price we're paying for this crap.

A subscription for army-list building?

Nah feth that noise. Already pay enough for GW's models. Not going to pay them to simply play a game...

The Division Of Joy wrote:
New poster, same old presumption.

Whether it's caused a backlash or not can't be judged by the foaming mouths on here.it'll be on the balance books I'm afraid.

Errr. My job is organisational change and new product development. I work with (and lead change) in companies far bigger than GW. When I talk about big actions and reactions - This is not a chicken little comment (I don't play so don't mind either way) but a statement on what generally happens in product transformation programmes. They are making (avoiding comment on content) some classically recognisable change errors with this launch. It sounds like (I don't know as have not been following 40K this century) that I did something similar to 40K at some point?

Personally, I would have made the IP lift and shift at a different time to a new rule set.

Prestor Jon wrote:

overtyrant wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:

Spoiler:

 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.

So because the US is bigger and better then everyone you think the US should call the shots. As far as we know they listen to the US branch and make decisions on that and their in this mess because they listened to the US. Your info is from a decade ago, is it still relevant today?

Dude, you're reading way too much into what he stated. The US and UK are two very different markets when it comes to GW's games. The UK is full of GW stores but the US is reliant on FLGS and LGS because there are barely any GW stores here.

Mikhaila is a FLGS owner with stores in Philadelphia. There's about 2 million people in that metro area, 1 GW store, over 2 dozen independent stores. Mikhaila's stores literally have a bigger market presence than GW's store and he's been gaming, running stores and selling GW products for decades. Independent stores are not the same as GW stores. If GW wants to be successful and profitable in the US they need the independent stores to carry, promote and sell their products. Independent retailers are essential partners when it comes to the success of GW games in the US and Mikhaila is just lamenting the fact that GW's corporate offices in Nottingham seem to be willfully ignorant of the realities of that symbiotic relationship. Consequently GW policies that are put forth from Nottingham for use in the US aren't tailored to fit the realities of the US market and help independent retailers successfully sell GW products.

Since Mikhaila still has a bigger retail presence in the Philadelphia market than GW and is still selling and promoting their products and dealing with GW reps on a regular ongoing basis his info is still relevant.

The whole ugly American being arrogant and condescending is a fabricated straw man on your part and that stereotype has not been evidenced in the discussion you reference.

Also in terms of landmass Russia and Canada are actually bigger than America so they're not actually bigger than everyone.

Having been in a USA FLGS in Florida I found it much more relaxing than going into my local GW at times. Plus great air conditioning

Anyway I was just interjecting to say that despite not contributing much here I've read a lot and find Mikhaila's information fascinating and highly informative and as someone who has been reduced to facepalming at some of GW's business calls (don't get me started on the Horus Heresy book series) I think it's fair comment to say that GW seems to have a far too inward looking approach rather than adjusting their business practises appropriately for different markets.

I have to go down to my flgs soon and see what he is going to do about this.
I know for a fact that he will be upset about this. He loves Fantasy. He does not like 40k at all even though there are a ton of 40k players in our flgs. He is most likely going to keep playing 8th edition because this AoS is too simplified, and I really hope he sticks with it because the community that is there is really good and the people like 8th edition alot.

Fantasy doesn't keep his store open, I think he keeps it open through Magic the Gathering and a combination of x-wing, boardgames and then the GW stuff.
Small store that's been around a while so I'm sure it'll stay around but I'm wondering what he will do with this new set.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not going to pay them to simply play a game...

But you do. Every time you buy a rulebook from them.

Mikhaila you own two big stores from what I can geuss?
How much do you rely on GW products to run your store? By the sounds of it your pretty diversified in products you sell, games and leagues you run etc.

Just curious to see what you have to say

 Runic wrote:
I guess just waiting for more people than a few to play one match of the game before jumping to conclusions is too much to ask for some users.

I'm literally seeing people who have decided the game is bad based on one user saying so who hasn't even played the game, or has played one match of it and just quickly browsed trough the rules ONCE.

Such an unbelievably idiotic way to go about anything really, but yeah, we can't all be sensible.

not everyone is doing that. from what we know about the game that is 100% solid( i.e. the white dwarf leaks) the game is pretty much garbage. I for one was really excited for this game. After seeing the leaked images of the models I even told my local shop to put me down for 2, then I saw the rules. I still haven't seen ALL of them and will make my final decision after that but as of right now, im out. My money will be going to games like FOW or bolt action and taking my whfb to KOW or playing 8th.

I will give this game a good look through and I will play it but until I see something worthwhile I will not spend a penny on it or waste any time other then testing out the rules.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Norsed wrote:
Quite possibly. That's certainly how I respond to the word competitive. Perhaps that is wrong of me.

It kinda is. There's a difference between being a more competitive player and just being a douchebag. "WAAC" generally refers to the latter, and a WAAC attitude isn't just about wanting to win really bad like some people believe, it includes really poor behavior like lying, cheating, bending and breaking the rules, in some cases even bullying or intimidating your opponent, literally doing anything it takes to win the game, and generally being unsportsmanlike in every way imaginable.

People hear the word "competitive" and immediately imagine the player I described above, when a "proper" competitive gamer is going to try their best to win, but does it without breaking the rules and being generally friendly and pleasant to play with.

Norsed wrote:
And I would say - not necesarily. But I would also say that expecting balance from any GW product is overly optimistic.

I don't think any of us are stupid enough to expect balance from GW anymore...but we kinda deserve balance for the price we're paying for this crap.

Yeah, they charge a premium for the models for this game, I think that expecting a balanced game is reasonable. The game we've been shown so far is horribly imbalanced. Those sudden death objectives don't do anything to stop me from fielding an army of 10,000 goblins as one giant unit and just crushing things. Sure, it would be expensive, but MSRP should not be the balancing factor.

We can probably all dial it down a notch or two yeah ?

thanks.

I read the 4 page rules last night.

Weaknesses :
- 2D6 charges without any bonus for the units actual speed !
- Possibility for player One the play two (three or more) consecutive turns if he wins initiative at the beginning of each round.
- Pure annihilation without any scenarios. (except for Sudden Death triggers and the like)

VERY BAD:
- The list is built during deployment. Players deploy one unit alternatively. Many units can have an Unlimited of models. «Mister Suitcases» with all the units (and multiple copies) will have a double advantage. 1) More choice. 2) See what the other player puts on the table and respond with the perfect counter unit with just the right number of troops. Limiting the number of models on the table will not prevent these avantages. Unlimited spamming possible if a unit is broken. Which leads to an arms race. Thus more profit for GW.

Once again GW uses randomized rules to determine results of strategic decisions during play. Its one of the main things that drove me away from their games. This game is not for me. If I feel the need to play medieval wars with multiple units I'll play a game of SAGA.

This game is for kids (8-12) who drop by a GW stores. The idea is probably to rebuilt a base of players from the ground up. And repeat the pattern of the last 30 years with a new cohort of players. GW gambles that low entry price, simple rules and pure annihilation will appeal the young players. They can always add scenarios and advanced rules later on. STOP / REWIND / REPLAY.

....errr....what?

I may be insanely biased about Comic Books because i own two of the larger shops in the US, but I'm also sort of tied to the industry. One only has to look at the 30 or so comic book inspired movies coming out to see where their popularity is going. Comics are hardly dying. The format is just changing. We don't sell 100% periodicals (floppies, 32page scs, however you think of it). The stories are online, on DVD collections, and a massive inventory of trade paperbacks. The amount of comic related products is massive: clothing, posters, toys, movies, tv series.

Walking Dead alone brought in a huge chunk of new readers, as did Watchmen, Avengers, and GotG. Groot alone is a pop culture icon and budding religious cult

As to AOS being for children, I agree. They made a game that's dead simple to play. However.....once the two 10 year olds are past the starter scenarios, i have no idea how to get them to keep playing. Telling Little Timmy and Little Joey to just put all their models on the table and "have fun" isn't going to work really well. Kids games are all about the rules, not about lack of rules.

Yes, the popularity is going up in the Superhero genre. How awesome are these movies!

That is different to comics. As a shop owner, you know this. Comic shops are closing all over the world. They are sold far less on the newsstand in Europe and I believe hardly at all in the US. Compared to the golden ages when they sold 100,000s of copies a month. IIRC over a million for X-Men 1 and Spider-Man 1? Comics as a genre are, by any measure, (sales, units, profit) dying. How much of your sales are actually comics and how much are the associated IP used in different product streams? I recall when comic stores were all back issues and the latest hottest releases. Now my local store (used to be 4 in our city, now just one) is 85% non comic.

The Marvel IP is incredibly powerful and will last a long time. The DC IP has many great un-mined opportunities. Whether that is in the traditional delivery format? Probably not. As you have said, the format changes have helped. But still, there is a downturn of sales compared to every decade before us.

The funny thing is, (and to bring it back on track) GWs IP was (whilst derivative) very powerful. They have probably broken that. Those of you talking about Narrative games over "gaming" games…. They have potentially devastated their narrative as well. So we end up with a game with a weaker IP (though more legally secure) and a weaker game.

UKS

UKS wrote:


The funny thing is, (and to bring it back on track) GWs IP was (whilst derivative) very powerful. They have probably broken that. Those of you talking about Narrative games over "gaming" games…. They have potentially devastated their narrative as well. So we end up with a game with a weaker IP (though more legally secure) and a weaker game.

UKS

Very much agree with all of this.

 mikhaila 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.

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.

So to play a balanced game, you'll have to buy the models and unlock the "balance" with a monthly fee? Lol, the four page core rules are free but it's like a bad MMO where they cut out a bunch of the needed things and put them behind a paywall. That horrible french canadian company tried mandatory online enabled gaming and failed. WOTC/D&D/Gleemax tried to put the rules online and failed. Microsoft tried online mandatory checkin for things that shouldn't have had it and failed. I guess if this rumor is true then it is now GW's turn. And, yes, I realize that you can play a badly balanced game without the monthly fee in this rumor but I also don't think it escapes GW that a random pickup game between strangers will lead to a defacto "are subscribed so we can balance the armies?" pregame question.

overtyrant wrote:
So because the US is bigger and better then everyone you think the US should call the shots.

Yes. Its as God intended.

I'm still cautiously optimistic about this release. Can't wait to get some games in and test it out, and to see the warscrolls on my Beastmen stuff.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not going to pay them to simply play a game...

But you do. Every time you buy a rulebook from them.

Yes technically before you were not dependent on a continuing subscription service.

Look you aren't Pizaro GW you are just not that good.

 Runic wrote:
I guess just waiting for more people than a few to play one match of the game before jumping to conclusions is too much to ask for some users.

I'm literally seeing people who have decided the game is bad based on one user saying so who hasn't even played the game, or has played one match of it and just quickly browsed trough the rules ONCE.

Such an unbelievably idiotic way to go about anything really, but yeah, we can't all be sensible.

Okay guys, you heard Runic, lock the thread. No one's allowed to have an opinion about AoS until we see the whole god-damned thing, even if most of the content from the box has been leaked already.

 nels1031 wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
So because the US is bigger and better then everyone you think the US should call the shots.

Yes. Its as God intended.

I'm still cautiously optimistic about this release. Can't wait to get some games in and test it out, and to see the warscrolls on my Beastmen stuff.

Not sure if sarcasm.

migooo wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
So because the US is bigger and better then everyone you think the US should call the shots.

Yes. Its as God intended.

I'm still cautiously optimistic about this release. Can't wait to get some games in and test it out, and to see the warscrolls on my Beastmen stuff.

Not sure if sarcasm.

Part of it is, I'll leave you in suspense as to which part!

 Runic wrote:
I guess just waiting for more people than a few to play one match of the game before jumping to conclusions is too much to ask for some users.

I'm literally seeing people who have decided the game is bad based on one user saying so who hasn't even played the game, or has played one match of it and just quickly browsed trough the rules ONCE.

Such an unbelievably idiotic way to go about anything really, but yeah, we can't all be sensible.

I agree with the sentiment of this, but if a car has no engine, I don't need to get behind the wheel to know it won't work.

The same principal is at work here. We have people on dakka who have been running FLGS for years, tournament organisers, and of course, people who have played hundreds of games of Fantasy, in their life time.

The rules have been leaked, and people, using their vast experience, have judged the game to be found wanting.

It's not a knee jerk reaction. A minority of GW haters will always be guilty of this, but many people wanted to give AOS a chance, and based on the evidence, have found it lacking.

Norsed wrote:
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.

By this definition, not a single wargame available today is narrative. Why even bother with a system or rolls if there is a story that is supposed to unfold? After all, what is the point of my archer trying to shoot a dude if that dude HAS to survive to go into the next "scene" or somesuch. That's not wargaming, that's storytelling.

No points limits. No restrictions on army buildings. Dumbed down rules. Measuring from the model (so modelling for advantage just came back into the fore in a HUGE way). Shooting into combat. Terrain basically doesn't matter. Have to be on terrain (not behind it) to get benefits... counter-intuitive much?

This is laughable.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
But you do. Every time you buy a rulebook from them.

I don't have to keep paying to use something I already... oh why am I even bothering? You knew exactly what I meant...

overtyrant wrote:
So because the US is bigger and better then everyone you think the US should call the shots. As far as we know they listen to the US branch and make decisions on that and their in this mess because they listened to the US. Your info is from a decade ago, is it still relevant today?

That's not even slightly what he said.

The simple fact is that the UK and US are different types of markets, with different demographics and even just simple geography making one marketing strategy not applicable to the other. GW takes the UK "high street" approach and tries to apply it everywhere, but that doesn't work in a country as vast as the US.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Runic wrote:
I guess just waiting for more people than a few to play one match of the game before jumping to conclusions is too much to ask for some users.

I'm literally seeing people who have decided the game is bad based on one user saying so who hasn't even played the game, or has played one match of it and just quickly browsed trough the rules ONCE.

Such an unbelievably idiotic way to go about anything really, but yeah, we can't all be sensible.

I agree with the sentiment of this, but if a car has no engine, I don't need to get behind the wheel to know it won't work.

The same principal is at work here. We have people on dakka who have been running FLGS for years, tournament organisers, and of course, people who have played hundreds of games of Fantasy, in their life time.

The rules have been leaked, and people, using their vast experience, have judged the game to be found wanting.

It's not a knee jerk reaction. A minority of GW haters will always be guilty of this, but many people wanted to give AOS a chance, and based on the evidence, have found it lacking.

This. I have been playing GW products since about 1990. 25 years of experience has provided me the insight to understand how the written rules (or lack there of,) translates onto the table top.

 streamdragon wrote:

Norsed wrote:
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.

By this definition, not a single wargame available today is narrative. Why even bother with a system or rolls if there is a story that is supposed to unfold? After all, what is the point of my archer trying to shoot a dude if that dude HAS to survive to go into the next "scene" or somesuch. That's not wargaming, that's storytelling.

I don't think you really understand... The story is created by the players, through the actions of their characters, and the results of those actions. There's no "scenes" that have to unfold in a certain way. Have you ever played a roleplaying game? There are dice involved in that yes? Apply those same concepts to a wargame. That is a narrative game. Something that has been happening for decades.

And no, you're right, there aren't many wargames that cater specifically to that style of play now. There used to be, indeed the earliest editions of Warhammer catered specifically for it. These days, it mostly seems to have been overtaken by the fast-play style of game.

Need to re-read those rules tonight and check if this is true.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
No points limits. No restrictions on army buildings. Dumbed down rules. Measuring from the model (so modelling for advantage just came back into the fore in a HUGE way). Shooting into combat. Terrain basically doesn't matter. Have to be on terrain (not behind it) to get benefits... counter-intuitive much?

This is laughable.

You're in (bad?) luck! A secondary rumor says that they'll fix some of that... for a monthly fee.