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.

The other day, I read an addendum to Tom Meier's bio, where he talked about the early days of gaming in the 1970s, when the decision was made by Minifies and Hinchliffe to produce 25mm figures, rather than the more traditional 30mm (1/48 scale), or the smaller HO scale 20mm figures.

The Sculptor for minifies said something along the lines, when asked about Tom WHY he had chosen this backward-assed scale/size when there was so much made in these other sizes/scales (especially for Napoleonics, AWI, and the Civil War, not to mention a few Medieval Castles and terrain), to the effect of:

"Ah! See, that's where we're smart! People have to come to us to buy everything!"

It is exactly this sort of clever-stoopid that has afflicted GW since its founding days (and, as much as I like him, Bryan Ansell was just as much afflicted by it).

Because as smart as that is, no one company, unless they have unlimited funding, can produce everything needed for gaming.

And it restricts people's abilities to finish out forces, and to accomplish their goals, being instead limited to Someone else's goals/ideals!.

Until GW gets this, whether we wish failure, or whether we wish them success, will continue their slow slide into oblivion.

MB

 Talys wrote:


No, you're wrong. There's 40k players who are looking for lower model count secondary games.

But AoS isn't a low model count secondary game; it could have more models than a 40K army. Low model count secondary games are the likes of X-Wing, Mordheim or Blood Bowl.

No matter how many times you say it, the rules aren't broken. You just don't like them.

They contain a lot of serious flaws - like the measuring to the mini, no points, gaining a cover save from standing on a wall, but not behind it. The error:word count ratio is pretty high.

As long as the number of people exceed the number of people buying WHFB stuff, GW comes out ahead. I have one friend who is furious at the changes from Fantasy to AoS, because he loves fantasy. But in the last 5 years, he's spent like, $300 on Fantasy. Ironically, he's going to buy Sigmar for the models -- which exceeds the total he's spent in the last 2 years, lol.

And potentially all he'll spend for the next 2 years. Presumably he spent a lot getting into WHFB initially and then just tailed off?

A normal sized army in Sigmar is 20-40 models, the starter box comes with some great models, and you don't need a lot more to add on. If you're playing another faction, you really don't need a lot of models. In fact, the game plays poorly for large model count, IMO.

According to the rules, a normal sized army in AoS is around 100 models. My guard infantry detachment doesn't even run to 100 models at 2000pts.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Ps just cracked open my AoS. Very nice boxset, just need some ideas of what to do with the Skull Daemon, nasty bugger!

Get him some lotion - he really needs to do something about his condition....

The Auld Grump - I really don't like that model, but I can see why others might.

I cut off the lower jaw and popped a daemon Prince head on. He's now a Khorne prince on foot. Because the head was bloody stupid. I couldn't even tell what actually WAS the head!

Other than that, the models are fantastic. Absolutely love the Khorne Marauders. Unfortunately, their look is a DIRECT pull from a Reaper model from years ago. Just slightly larger.

Herzlos wrote:
But AoS isn't a low model count secondary game; it could have more models than a 40K army. Low model count secondary games are the likes of X-Wing, Mordheim or Blood Bowl.

I genuinely don't think so. A WHFB sized (100 - 200 model) army on AoS would not be fun to play, in my opinion. Aside from it taking a zillion years to finish, I think the game mechanics would actually be horrible.

Herzlos wrote:
They contain a lot of serious flaws - like the measuring to the mini, no points, gaining a cover save from standing on a wall, but not behind it. The error:word count ratio is pretty high.

I agree that measuring to the mini (not the base) is not a good rule, though I think it's one that everyone has naturally changed, even if it's subconsciously. Cover saves? Whatever, that's a game mechanic. You assume the model is in constant motion, not frozen in time.

No points is a NOT a bad thing. it's a DIFFERENT thing. WHFB is, "You and I balance our armies based on what Games Workshop thinks units are worth." AoS is one of two things: "You and I play a preplanned scenario where everything has been prebalanced." OR "You and I agree on balanced armies based on what WE think they are worth."

It takes out any chance of cheese. The problem with people wanting balance is that for competitive players, and I am guilty of this they don't really want balance. They want people to FEEL that it's balanced, but they REALLY want the upper hand, through superior list building. The whole idea of list building is to have a better army than the opponent's, giving you an advantage before the game starts. The only difference is that some competitive gamers admit this, while others just want to feel smarter when they win, when in fact, 75% of their win was due to a better list, and the concept behind that list wasn't theirs, but rather someone else's on the Internet.

I'm telling you, optimized lists is a turn-off for the crowd that plays Magic games just for fun and don't want to face a competitive, razor-sharpened deck (read: 85% of the women I've played Magic with). By removing points, unit A B and C in combination are worth more than A B and C separately. This actually is NOT the game I want. In a war game, I want to start with an unfair advantage, not perfect balance, which is why I build army lists. But there are people that are not like me.

One more thing: A game doesn't HAVE to support competitive play in order to be a good game. In fact, if you want to target all the people who aren't interested in competitive gaming, keeping competitive players away from the game will have a positive effect for the people who DO play the game.

And potentially all he'll spend for the next 2 years. Presumably he spent a lot getting into WHFB initially and then just tailed off?

He's played for 20 years. As the years went by, he felt less and less a need to add to his High Elf army.

It's a different mentality than our 40k gang, where it seems like the Eldar guy in our group can never have enough Wraithknights or Crimson Hunters or Jetbikes, or War Walkers, or whatever. In the 40k world, it seems like players are more willing to build their armies to apocalyptic sizes (unplayably large), whereas in the Fantasy world, the armies may be larger, but at some point, players feel their armies are "finished".

In part, I think it's because there is a REALLY long gap between releases for a faction, and there aren't vehicle kits, which are a pretty big deal in 40k.

According to the rules, a normal sized army in AoS is around 100 models. My guard infantry detachment doesn't even run to 100 models at 2000pts.

Maybe I missed something, but where does it say that a normal-sized AoS army is 100 models? I think in White Dwarf or something it said that you can basically play with any number of models you want. But having played it, it scales badly (I don't think anyone who has played the game would disagree with me). Not only are the mechanics awkward, but the turns would take forever.

Even if you said you were willing to play a really long game, I think it will suck at 100 models per side unless you have an uncommonly massive table. Maybe I'm wrong. We tried 50 models and it was getting crowded, and bogged down. It was WAY more fun at roughly 30 models.

 Talys wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
]According to the rules, a normal sized army in AoS is around 100 models. My guard infantry detachment doesn't even run to 100 models at 2000pts.

Maybe I missed something, but where does it say that a normal-sized AoS army is 100 models? I think in White Dwarf or something it said that you can basically play with any number of models you want. But having played it, it scales badly (I don't think anyone who has played the game would disagree with me). Not only are the mechanics awkward, but the turns would take forever.

Even if you said you were willing to play a really long game, I think it will suck at 100 models per side unless you have an uncommonly massive table. Maybe I'm wrong. We tried 50 models and it was getting crowded, and bogged down. It was WAY more fun at roughly 30 models.

The first paragraph on the first page of the rules ends with, "Typically, a game with around a hundred miniatures per side will last for about an evening."

It's not explicitly stating that a hundred miniatures per side is a standard game size - although it does say 'typically' - but it sure doesn't say that a hundred minis per side is an extreme.

Probably already posted, but still...




Point though: what the hell's Forgeworld going to do about releasing those hardback supplements? If these rules are so bare bone they're a bit screwed unless they want to just say "use this force composition for fluff reasons", unless later on using x unit with y unit actually gives a bonus or something.

 Talys wrote:

No points is a NOT a bad thing. it's a DIFFERENT thing. WHFB is, "You and I balance our armies based on what Games Workshop thinks units are worth." AoS is one of two things: "You and I play a preplanned scenario where everything has been prebalanced." OR "You and I agree on balanced armies based on what WE think they are worth."

But aside from close friends, people might and will disagree on what is balanced. It's not the extreme cases players are worried about, but the gray areas that cause the most problems.

It takes out any chance of cheese.

Wait....what? Letting people take whatever with no way of knowing what's stronger prevents cheese? Going by wounds, there's a big difference in say a tac squad with all bolters and and a tac squad with a heavy bolter and melta gun and a sergeant loaded up with lots of upgrades. Without points they're technically equal, but clearly they're not.

The problem with people wanting balance is that for competitive players, and I am guilty of this they don't really want balance. They want people to FEEL that it's balanced, but they REALLY want the upper hand, through superior list building.

You're projecting your own weird ideas on others. That's simply not true. I want close games that come down to the line where player decisions determine who the winner is. Some of my most memorable games are ones I lost. As a fluffly player, I don't want a drastic disadvantage just because I like a particular army. I want the game to be as close to fair as possible. At the same time, I don't want an advantage over the player because it would cheapen my win and wouldn't be earned. It would be a let down if I stomped my opponent because my list happened to be far better. This idea that everyone's secretly a WAAC power gammer is ridiculous.

The whole idea of list building is to have a better army than the opponent's, giving you an advantage before the game starts.

No, it's to make the kind of army you want to play while giving yourself the best chance of winning because the other guy's doing the same. I don't want to be told what kind of army to make. "You have to take three of these, two of these and at least one of these. The remaining five points you can spend on whatever you like." That sounds boring as feth. List building is creative and also gives you the best chance of winning. Not "advantage" because the other guy is doing the same and hopefully it will come out equal.

The only difference is that some competitive gamers admit this, while others just want to feel smarter when they win, when in fact, 75% of their win was due to a better list, and the concept behind that list wasn't theirs, but rather someone else's on the Internet.

And that's due to shoddy rules where internal imbalance makes good and bad choices all to obvious. Make every choice viable and the type of lists you'd see would become far far more unique.

I'm telling you, optimized lists is a turn-off for the crowd that plays Magic games just for fun and don't want to face a competitive, razor-sharpened deck (read: 85% of the women I've played Magic with). By removing points, unit A B and C in combination are worth more than A B and C separately. This actually is NOT the game I want. In a war game, I want to start with an unfair advantage, not perfect balance, which is why I build army lists. But there are people that are not like me.

You're projecting your opinions on everyone like that is the norm. I don't want an unfair advantage. I want a close a game as possible.
I understand playing for fun, but optimized lists is not contradictory to that. It's only when the game's balance is so poor that a non optimized list stands no chance of winning.
It's not the concept of list building or points that's the problem. It's GW's terrible handling of the concepts that's the problem.

One more thing: A game doesn't HAVE to support competitive play in order to be a good game. In fact, if you want to target all the people who aren't interested in competitive gaming, keeping competitive players away from the game will have a positive effect for the people who DO play the game.

No, but it makes sense from a marketing stand point. Cutting out competitive players is a large chunk of potential revenue. And you're grossly over-emphasising this "Stomp all noobs" mentality among cempetitive players. They've been some of the nicest and welcoming people I've met. There are jerk competitive and jerk casuals. People are people.

 MWHistorian wrote:

It takes out any chance of cheese.

Wait....what? Letting people take whatever with no way of knowing what's stronger prevents cheese? Going by wounds, there's a big difference in say a tac squad with all bolters and and a tac squad with a heavy bolter and melta gun and a sergeant loaded up with lots of upgrades. Without points they're technically equal, but clearly they're not.

You misunderstand me: A preplanned game, where the scenario specifies the table size, location of all terrain, and all units to be fielded (perhaps with some allowance for minor customization) eliminates any chance of cheese. Even in a tournament game between total strangers, No options = no cheese. How you win is how well you play, period. Like a game of chess.

You're projecting your own weird ideas on others. That's simply not true. I want close games that come down to the line where player decisions determine who the winner is. Some of my most memorable games are ones I lost. As a fluffly player, I don't want a drastic disadvantage just because I like a particular army. I want the game to be as close to fair as possible. At the same time, I don't want an advantage over the player because it would cheapen my win and wouldn't be earned. It would be a let down if I stomped my opponent because my list happened to be far better. This idea that everyone's secretly a WAAC power gammer is ridiculous.

I didn't say everyone. I said, a category of powergamer and competitive player. I'm not tossing everyone into the mix, though, to some extent, I am one of those people who enjoy eliciting an advantage buy building strong lists. It doesn't make me evil or un-fun; it just means, I like building advantageous lists.

No, it's to make the kind of army you want to play while giving yourself the best chance of winning because the other guy's doing the same. I don't want to be told what kind of army to make. "You have to take three of these, two of these and at least one of these. The remaining five points you can spend on whatever you like." That sounds boring as feth. List building is creative and also gives you the best chance of winning. Not "advantage" because the other guy is doing the same and hopefully it will come out equal.

If everyone built armies on the basis of wanting to have fun, that would be great. But often, people build armies just to win, and it gets repetitive and monobuild.

No, but it makes sense from a marketing stand point. Cutting out competitive players is a large chunk of potential revenue. And you're grossly over-emphasising this "Stomp all noobs" mentality among cempetitive players. They've been some of the nicest and welcoming people I've met. There are jerk competitive and jerk casuals. People are people.

I don't particularly disagree. Especially since, on the relative scale, I'm reasonably competitive at times (and reasonably fluffy other times). I'm saying, there's the possibility that a game that focuses on social interaction and cooperation before the competition starts, rather than mathematical formulae, is an interesting concept that I won't dismiss as being impossible to be successful.

 Talys wrote:


If everyone built armies on the basis of wanting to have fun, that would be great. But often, people build armies just to win, and it gets repetitive and monobuild.

Always remember, having fun and wanting to win are not mutually exclusive affairs.

Further, I'm sure there's a number of players who like a specific theme to their army, and will therefore create and refine lists within their own self-imposed restrictions. It may seem repetitive to you, but others may see it as a gradual change and refinement of a concept they've been working on.

Ultimately, a points system (or other system of balance) is superior to a system without it precisely to mitigate these problems. A point-less system doesn't make people build 'fun' armies any more than a pointed one because you still have all the underlying balance issues without the ease of comparing relative strengths.

Just imagine 40k without points right now. The balance problems are still there, but now its even harder to judge what a fair, balanced match up would be without a basic benchmark to go off of, even with all of 40k's current balance issues.

 Talys wrote:
I agree that measuring to the mini (not the base) is not a good rule, though I think it's one that everyone has naturally changed, even if it's subconsciously.

So you admit that the game is broken.

No points is a NOT a bad thing. it's a DIFFERENT thing. WHFB is, "You and I balance our armies based on what Games Workshop thinks units are worth." AoS is one of two things: "You and I play a preplanned scenario where everything has been prebalanced." OR "You and I agree on balanced armies based on what WE think they are worth."

No, it's an incredibly stupid thing. A game like WHFB/AoS/whatever requires point costs to function. The only question is whether those point costs will be provided by the publisher and the game will be playable "out of the box", or if the players will have to invest a ton of time and effort into creating their own point system.

Also, your comment about "you and I agree" misses a fundamental problem: AoS is a competitive game. All of my models are underpowered and should cost less than they do, all of your models are overpowered and should cost more than they do. Even if neither player is a WAAC TFG they're going to have an inherent desire to skew the game in their own direction. Therefore a system where each player has to lobby for their own faction to be better is going to be worse than one where a neutral third party (preferably the game designer) provides an evaluation of each unit's value.

By removing points, unit A B and C in combination are worth more than A B and C separately.

Actually, the three units in combination are worth less than they are separately because I've successfully argued that my overpowered combo should be even cheaper. Removing points doesn't remove list optimization and trying to gain an advantage before the first die is rolled, it just changes the goal from "find the best value in this list of options" to "be really persuasive in arguing that your army should be more powerful".

One more thing: A game doesn't HAVE to support competitive play in order to be a good game. In fact, if you want to target all the people who aren't interested in competitive gaming, keeping competitive players away from the game will have a positive effect for the people who DO play the game.

The problem with this argument is the same problem that it has when people make it about 40k: the things that make 40k/AoS/whatever bad for competitive play almost always make it bad for casual/narrative/whatever players. It's like saying well, this headache sucks, but maybe if I fetch my gun and blow my head off I'll get rid of the headache and be able to think clearly.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I agree that measuring to the mini (not the base) is not a good rule, though I think it's one that everyone has naturally changed, even if it's subconsciously.

So you admit that the game is broken.

By that metric, every wargame is broken, because I can find something I don't like in every game.

So no, the game isn't broken, because I don't like one rule.

 Peregrine wrote:

No points is a NOT a bad thing. it's a DIFFERENT thing. WHFB is, "You and I balance our armies based on what Games Workshop thinks units are worth." AoS is one of two things: "You and I play a preplanned scenario where everything has been prebalanced." OR "You and I agree on balanced armies based on what WE think they are worth."

No, it's an incredibly stupid thing. A game like WHFB/AoS/whatever requires point costs to function. The only question is whether those point costs will be provided by the publisher and the game will be playable "out of the box", or if the players will have to invest a ton of time and effort into creating their own point system.

Also, your comment about "you and I agree" misses a fundamental problem: AoS is a competitive game. All of my models are underpowered and should cost less than they do, all of your models are overpowered and should cost more than they do. Even if neither player is a WAAC TFG they're going to have an inherent desire to skew the game in their own direction. Therefore a system where each player has to lobby for their own faction to be better is going to be worse than one where a neutral third party (preferably the game designer) provides an evaluation of each unit's value.

1. Build a game that a WAAC TFG will have no interest in. Yay! I don't want them around anyways.
2. Build a game that encourages both players to NOT skew the game in their own direction. For example, by giving a preset of "take exactly this, play on exactly this environment." No skew.

You think AoS is a competitive game. I think AoS is a game that I play with someone for the hell of it. I really don't care if I win or lose, even less so than 40k.

By removing points, unit A B and C in combination are worth more than A B and C separately.

Actually, the three units in combination are worth less than they are separately because I've successfully argued that my overpowered combo should be even cheaper. Removing points doesn't remove list optimization and trying to gain an advantage before the first die is rolled, it just changes the goal from "find the best value in this list of options" to "be really persuasive in arguing that your army should be more powerful".
[/quote[

You haven't successfully argued anything. You just argue something, and say, "See? I'm successful."

The world is flat. Truth. See? I successfully argued it. It just isn't actually true. But I did argue it successfully, because I said I did and declared victory. George W. Bush: "Mission Accomplished."

The problem with this argument is the same problem that it has when people make it about 40k: the things that make 40k/AoS/whatever bad for competitive play almost always make it bad for casual/narrative/whatever players. It's like saying well, this headache sucks, but maybe if I fetch my gun and blow my head off I'll get rid of the headache and be able to think clearly.

No, it just means, I'd rather play with like-minded people. I could really give a crap if people who aren't like-minded with me fall off the face of the earth or play another game, or go play paintball. Whether they are in the hobby or not makes no difference to me.

Conversely, if a game isn't designed for people like me, and/or there aren't people like me to play with, I'll do something else.

GW happens to design a game and game world that is just about perfect for me in Warhammer 40k. Note that I've said repeatedly that AoS is not perfect for me, but I can see that it's perfect for some people.

For example, 2 of the girlfriends of the guys that I play with, plus my wife play MtG is the most non-competitive way that you can imagine. They like taking every card they own, and laugh when they draw no land for 30 turns, draw only land for 30 turns, or draw the wrong color land for 30 turns in the row. They think it's hilarious, and their opponent will sit there doing nothing for 30 turns waiting for them to draw something useful, without attacking. They think an hour-long magic game where they get to look at lots of pretty pictures on cards is an awesome thing, so they'll purposely not kill each other.

They are actually thinking of playing AoS... after we paint them some minis that they can play with, lol... and they hate 40k, and would never, ever consider WHFB. Incidentally, they would also be terrible customers for AoS, long term -- I don't think they'd buy very many minis at all. But who knows; I didn't think my wife would buy a closet full of Magic cards either.

 Talys wrote:
By that metric, every wargame is broken, because I can find something I don't like in every game.

So no, the game isn't broken, because I don't like one rule.

There's a difference between "something I don't like" and "something so obviously bad that virtually everyone has changed it, and the designers are absolute ing morons for allowing it to be printed that way in the first place".

1. Build a game that a WAAC TFG will have no interest in. Yay! I don't want them around anyways.

The only way to do this is to make a game that nobody else will be interested in. In fact, WAAC players will often be the last players to leave a game because of its flaws. Problems that will drive other people to quit are just opportunities for TFG to exploit.

2. Build a game that encourages both players to NOT skew the game in their own direction. For example, by giving a preset of "take exactly this, play on exactly this environment." No skew.

No skew, but nothing really interesting either. Maybe a "fixed scenarios only" approach could be ok in hardcore competitive gaming (if the designer is good at making the scenarios balanced to that level), but it sucks for everything else. A huge part of the appeal of miniature wargaming is the ability to build your own army and write your own story. You can't do that if the designer takes away all of the options.

You think AoS is a competitive game. I think AoS is a game that I play with someone for the hell of it. I really don't care if I win or lose, even less so than 40k.

No, you misunderstand here. The fact that AoS is a competitive game is not something that's up for debate, because I'm talking about casual vs. cooperative not "how much do I want to win". AoS is a competitive game because it involves two (or more) players on opposing sides trying to defeat each other. A cooperative game would involve those players working together to defeat a common enemy, and AoS is clearly not a game like that.

You haven't successfully argued anything. You just argue something, and say, "See? I'm successful."

Sigh. I'm presenting a hypothetical scenario here where the WAAC player always lobbies for their own army to be more powerful. A + B + C are not inherently more "expensive" than those choices separately, it only works out that way if both players agree to that value. If the WAAC player dishonestly convinces their opponent that their "A + B + C" army is weak and should have extra warscrolls added to make up for their disadvantage then the combo will be "cheaper" than the units taken separately by some other player.

For example, 2 of the girlfriends of the guys that I play with, plus my wife play MtG is the most non-competitive way that you can imagine. They like taking every card they own, and laugh when they draw no land for 30 turns, draw only land for 30 turns, or draw the wrong color land for 30 turns in the row. They think it's hilarious, and their opponent will sit there doing nothing for 30 turns waiting for them to draw something useful, without attacking. They think an hour-long magic game where they get to look at lots of pretty pictures on cards is an awesome thing, so they'll purposely not kill each other.

Which is fine, if you're talking about a game where you spend $0 because a more serious MTG player gives you their discarded commons pile. How many of the people who play MTG like that are investing hundreds or thousands of dollars in buying new cards?

This is the fundamental problem with AoS: it's too expensive to be a casual "screw around for a few hours while drinking" game, and a spectacular failure as a "significant hobby" game. This goes back to the "millionaire children" point I made earlier, about how GW has limited themselves to people who like the awkward humor and have so much money that spending $500 on entertainment for an evening or two is just a rounding error in their daily budget. Their ideal and only target customer seems to be the kind of person who stops by their local UK store to pick up a starter box on the way to the airport where their private jet is waiting for trip to lunch in NYC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
They are actually thinking of playing AoS... after we paint them some minis that they can play with, lol... and they hate 40k, and would never, ever consider WHFB. Incidentally, they would also be terrible customers for AoS, long term -- I don't think they'd buy very many minis at all. But who knows; I didn't think my wife would buy a closet full of Magic cards either.

Exactly! If the only people who AoS is good for are not going to make any significant investment in the game then AoS is a hilarious failure.

This goes back to the "millionaire children" point I made earlier, about how GW has limited themselves to people who like the awkward humor and have so much money that spending $500 on entertainment for an evening or two is just a rounding error in their daily budget. Their ideal and only target customer seems to be the kind of person who stops by their local UK store to pick up a starter box on the way to the airport where their private jet is waiting for trip to lunch in NYC.

Oh come on Pere, you dont really believe that do you?
Lots of us battle through a weeks work and earn a decent wage and then go buy some mdoels we want/like/enjoy. We then do not hop into first class for a trip to Tokyo

 Ratius wrote:

This goes back to the "millionaire children" point I made earlier, about how GW has limited themselves to people who like the awkward humor and have so much money that spending $500 on entertainment for an evening or two is just a rounding error in their daily budget. Their ideal and only target customer seems to be the kind of person who stops by their local UK store to pick up a starter box on the way to the airport where their private jet is waiting for trip to lunch in NYC.

Oh come on Pere, you dont really believe that do you?
Lots of us battle through a weeks work and earn a decent wage and then go buy some mdoels we want/like/enjoy. We then do not hop into first class for a trip to Tokyo

I highlighted the important part for you. Lots of people can afford to pay GW prices for a serious hobby. Very few people can afford to pay GW prices to screw around for a few hours.

AoS is plenty affordable for anyone with a job.

Missed breakfast in NY today so I could staying to receive my copy of AoS.

His point is that it's far too expensive for a casual game you'll fool around with for an evening or two and then forget about it.

You think AoS is a competitive game. I think AoS is a game that I play with someone for the hell of it. I really don't care if I win or lose, even less so than 40k.

Does AoS not feature two players where one of whom will be judged the winner at the conclusion of the game?

Because otherwise it's the very definition of competitive.

The fact you claim not to care whether you win or lose doesn't mean one of those two outcomes doesn't happen.

In fact I can't think of a single activity characterised as a "game" from hopscotch to paintball that doesn't involve an element of competition, if only with oneself to try and improve on past performances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
AoS is plenty affordable for anyone with a job.

Missed breakfast in NY today so I could staying to receive my copy of AoS.

Really?

Wow. Unless that's an opportunity that occurs regularly for some reason, I'm not sure that was even remotely the right call.

 Azreal13 wrote:

You think AoS is a competitive game. I think AoS is a game that I play with someone for the hell of it. I really don't care if I win or lose, even less so than 40k.

Does AoS not feature two players where one of whom will be judged the winner at the conclusion of the game?

Because otherwise it's the very definition of competitive.

The fact you claim not to care whether you win or lose doesn't mean one of those two outcomes doesn't happen.

In fact I can't think of a single activity characterised as a "game" from hopscotch to paintball that doesn't involve an element of competition, if only with oneself to try and improve on past performances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
AoS is plenty affordable for anyone with a job.

Missed breakfast in NY today so I could staying to receive my copy of AoS.

Really?

Wow. Unless that's an opportunity that occurs regularly for some reason, I'm not sure that was even remotely the right call.

Once again he's projecting his particular philosophy on the player base as a whole.

Peregrine,

I also said that my wife, whom I did not expect to ever buy more than a couple of starter packs has now spent a couple of thousand dollars over 10 years or so. This doesn't represent millionaires, and I said that although I dint think she'll buy AoD minis that add up to a hill of beans beyond the starter, who knows?

Anyways, we have a fundamentally different outlook on hobby. I believe that there are people invested in the hobby for wildly different reasons and with completely different priorities than me, and I believe that companies can and should market to segments other than mine -- which is probably more similar to yours, than our banter would suggest. You, on the other hand, dismiss every segment that you can't understand or is wildly different from your viewpoint as irrelevant, marginal, or unprofitable.

I'm willing to see the possibility that AoS may succeed or fail whereas you don't think that it has any possibility of even mediocre success. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think this is because the style of fun promoted by AoS is not at all enjoyable to you and you can't understand how it could be enjoyable to anyone, despite that if you look in the AoS GD thread, many people who have tried it have good things to say. I mean, it's not just me being a GW white knight. Keep in mind that I'm open to the possibility of it's long term failure, too.

I don't think we'll ever be able to reconcile this difference, no matter how many times we go back and forth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

You think AoS is a competitive game. I think AoS is a game that I play with someone for the hell of it. I really don't care if I win or lose, even less so than 40k.

Does AoS not feature two players where one of whom will be judged the winner at the conclusion of the game?

Because otherwise it's the very definition of competitive.

The fact you claim not to care whether you win or lose doesn't mean one of those two outcomes doesn't happen.

In fact I can't think of a single activity characterised as a "game" from hopscotch to paintball that doesn't involve an element of competition, if only with oneself to try and improve on past performances.

Yes, AoS features 2 players where one of them may be judged the winner at the conclusion of the game.

No, that doesn't mean that it must be a competitive game.

As an example, I know plenty (dozens!) of people who play magic with ridiculous, 300+ card decks, who refuse to make a killing attack. They want to play out their whole deck with their friends, and they have a good time playing the game. It is totally non-competitive in every conceivable sense of the word.

When their opponent doesn't draw land, what do they do? Laugh at them, and draw and discard.

Their goal is to PLAY, not to win, even though there may be judged a winner. Therefore, it's non-competitive. This may be a foreign concept to you, and you may think it stupid, but these people exist.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 notprop wrote:
AoS is plenty affordable for anyone with a job.

Missed breakfast in NY today so I could staying to receive my copy of AoS.

Really?

Wow. Unless that's an opportunity that occurs regularly for some reason, I'm not sure that was even remotely the right call.

Just like with Peregrine, you should try to understand that not everyone has the same priorities as you, and that they are not any more right or wrong as you. And, a game manufacturer shouldn't dismiss them as a player or potential customer.

Without knowing their circumstance, it's impossible to tell whether it mattered or not. Of course, some people do dumb things because they want to get a product as soon as they can. I went to a AoS launch party (12:01 midnight). By any rational explanation, that was dumb, because I already had Age of Sigmar, and I have no intention of playing Sigmar with anyone there, and our group doesn't have room for anyone new in the foreseeable future. But it was fun!

So what you're saying is, that because you don't think it's competitive then it isn't?

Two people going through a process in order to determine a winner is the very definition of competitive, all your examples do is demonstrate there's a spectrum of how hard people try.

I think you'll also find most people would rate a trip to NY from the UK over waiting in for a parcel - sure, that's me technically projecting "my" priorities onto the situation, although you'll note I did allow for it being not that big of a deal, my auntie worked for BA and my uncle and her were always popping off for a few days here or there, but I'm pretty confident that your average person would choose the trip over waiting in all day.

Talys, if one person is judged as a winner at the end of the game, then they were to some extent competing for the victory, thus making the game competitive. The degrees to which that effort is put in vary, but it doesn't make it less competitive.

Playing a game of cribbage with the wife is still a competitive affair, even after a bottle of wine. The amount we care or put effort into it is obviously very little but there's still a winner and we're still trying, thus by its nature, is a competitive game. A non-competitive game would be one where the group works together, making it cooperative as the goal isn't to compete against one another but rather to complete some objectives together.

*Edit* The next person who ninja's me gets a very stern private message stating my mild annoyance at being ninja'd. You've been warned.

On the Original Topic:

No

I hope they and any other game company currently in business stays in business.

Blacksails wrote:Talys, if one person is judged as a winner at the end of the game, then they were to some extent competing for the victory, thus making the game competitive. The degrees to which that effort is put in vary, but it doesn't make it less competitive.

Playing a game of cribbage with the wife is still a competitive affair, even after a bottle of wine. The amount we care or put effort into it is obviously very little but there's still a winner and we're still trying, thus by its nature, is a competitive game. A non-competitive game would be one where the group works together, making it cooperative as the goal isn't to compete against one another but rather to complete some objectives together.

I understand what you're saying, and obviously, there are varying levels of competitiveness.

My real point is that there are friends who are willing to cooperate to put together what both people think is a fair game with no skew, or if anything, a bias against themselves. This type of player is necessary for the success of developing self-made games in Age of Sigmar. I contend that they DO exist.

Here are 2 examples of non-competitive games where players play with, not against each other, even though there's a clear winner:

I am a pretty avid tennis player (in my youth, tournament-competitive). But it's more about exercise and playing a game with friends where there's a winner and loser; I'm sure not going to win 40-love in straight sets, because that's just stupid. If I tried, that's how 90% of my tennis games would turn out, because I happen to have thousands of more games and hours of practice under my belt than most.

Also, I'm not sure how you would characterize the games of Magic (sometimes, I'm in them!) where there are the massive decks, where everyone is purposely dragging it on forever. Where the loser is the one who is actually trying to WIN, even though everyone will congratulate the winner, because the goal is to make the one game last as long as dinner at Denny's and see as many cards as possible.

Azreal13 wrote:So what you're saying is, that because you don't think it's competitive then it isn't?

Two people going through a process in order to determine a winner is the very definition of competitive, all your examples do is demonstrate there's a spectrum of how hard people try.

I think you'll also find most people would rate a trip to NY from the UK over waiting in for a parcel - sure, that's me technically projecting "my" priorities onto the situation, although you'll note I did allow for it being not that big of a deal, my auntie worked for BA and my uncle and her were always popping off for a few days here or there, but I'm pretty confident that your average person would choose the trip over waiting in all day.

See above -- I'm just saying, some people are less competitive, and more interested in playing than winning, and don't care if they win or lose. Some people will even cheat or throw the game so that they don't win. It's really common if you're playing a video game with a kid. I try to have a low but believable win ratio. I fake it, so that my nephew can feel good that he destroyed me. RAWR.

Sometimes, I really want a parcel too I remember anxiously waiting for my first airbrush, and missing something for it. Neither here nor there, though.

 Talys wrote:

I understand what you're saying, and obviously, there are varying levels of competitiveness.

My real point is that there are friends who are willing to cooperate to put together what both people think is a fair game with no skew, or if anything, a bias against themselves. This type of player is necessary for the success of developing self-made games in Age of Sigmar. I contend that they DO exist.

Here are 2 examples of non-competitive games where players play with, not against each other, even though there's a clear winner:

I am a pretty avid tennis player (in my youth, tournament-competitive). But it's more about exercise and playing a game with friends where there's a winner and loser; I'm sure not going to win 40-love in straight sets, because that's just stupid.

Also, I'm not sure how you would characterize the games of Magic (sometimes, I'm in them!) where there are the massive decks, where everyone is purposely dragging it on forever. Where the loser is the one who is actually trying to WIN, even though everyone will congratulate the winner, because the goal is to make the one game last as long as dinner at Denny's and see as many cards as possible.

In both of your examples, assuming some sort of score is being kept to determine a winner, then yes, they're competitive. If you're just flipping cards over and telling a story about how your time dragon and grass troll are now dating in the haunted woods or practicing your serves over and over again, then yes, you wouldn't be competing.

There are degrees of effort or competitiveness, whatever wording you'd like to use, but if there's some metric being used to determine who won, its by definition a competition and therefore competitive. How much you care varies, and is largely irrelevant for establishing my point. Again, the drunker my wife and I get playing cribbage or munchkin with friends doesn't stop it from being competitive to some extent. The amount we house rule or let slide or fudge doesn't change that. Its still a competition, just one with nothing on the line and only minimal effort being exerted to remind my friend its their turn and to get me another beer.

was able to get a couple games in today with the release of the starter box...though it was Lizardmen vs Vampire Counts lol. and had a blast the whole time we tried a instant win condition game and it was close if my Temple Guard hadn't been where they were, i would have lost.

a quick run down of the armies.

Lizies:

1 Saurus oldblood
10 Saurus Warriors w standard and musician and alpha
5 Temple Guard w Stardrake icons
2 Jungle Swarm bases
1 Bastiladon w Solar Engine

Vamps:

Manfred Von Carstein.....thats it lol

he kept summoning skeletons, grave guard and some cavalry and kept my Sarus Warriors bogged down.

btw for any Lizardmen players reading this...Jungle swarms are SOOOO Deadly 5W 5A only hit and wound on a 5+ but on a 6+ to hit its a mortal wound...gahh

 Commissar41.0 wrote:
was able to get a couple games in today with the release of the starter box...though it was Lizardmen vs Vampire Counts lol. and had a blast the whole time we tried a instant win condition game and it was close if my Temple Guard hadn't been where they were, i would have lost.

a quick run down of the armies.

Lizies:

1 Saurus oldblood
10 Saurus Warriors w standard and musician and alpha
5 Temple Guard w Stardrake icons
2 Jungle Swarm bases
1 Bastiladon w Solar Engine

Vamps:

Manfred Von Carstein.....thats it lol

he kept summoning skeletons, grave guard and some cavalry and kept my Sarus Warriors bogged down.

btw for any Lizardmen players reading this...Jungle swarms are SOOOO Deadly 5W 5A only hit and wound on a 5+ but on a 6+ to hit its a mortal wound...gahh

If allowing summoning, just take a Slann and summon up more lizards

 Talys wrote:


My real point is that there are friends who are willing to cooperate to put together what both people think is a fair game with no skew, or if anything, a bias against themselves. This type of player is necessary for the success of developing self-made games in Age of Sigmar. I contend that they DO exist.

And the same could be done by a well written game with no effort on the players part. I just came from my FLGS where I watched two people with the new AOS box set (the only one sold all week) trying to come up with a balanced force. I was there for a half hour and they still hadn't started playing.

 Blacksails wrote:
In both of your examples, assuming some sort of score is being kept to determine a winner, then yes, they're competitive. If you're just flipping cards over and telling a story about how your time dragon and grass troll are now dating in the haunted woods or practicing your serves over and over again, then yes, you wouldn't be competing.

There are degrees of effort or competitiveness, whatever wording you'd like to use, but if there's some metric being used to determine who won, its by definition a competition and therefore competitive. How much you care varies, and is largely irrelevant for establishing my point. Again, the drunker my wife and I get playing cribbage or munchkin with friends doesn't stop it from being competitive to some extent. The amount we house rule or let slide or fudge doesn't change that. Its still a competition, just one with nothing on the line and only minimal effort being exerted to remind my friend its their turn and to get me another beer.

Well, the tennis games are a bad example of competitiveness, because there are people that I play with where I could win 100 consecutive serves if I wanted to, so I'm actively playing to extend the game and provide the other player some entertainment, rather than competing. We could start every game at match point foe the, and I'd probably still win a set of 6.

For wargaming, in principle, I largely agree with you. There is always some element of competitiveness; it isn't just storytelling (like an RPG).

But there is cooperative competitiveness, in which AoS can thrive, and hardcore competitiveness, in which it will almost certainly whither. Could it be great for both camps? In the current incarnation, only in preplanned games made by an impartial third party. I'm not sure what kind of market there is for the latter; I suspect there's more of a market for the former. I have no idea how large that market is, but it seems a reasonable (almost surprising) number of people have enjoyed trying it out.

That's all I was getting at

Played a few games today. Must say best fun ive had in a while wargaming wise. For me personally beats out old fantasy by a wide margin. Yeah its not for everyone but nothing rarely is. If you dont enjoy it ok. If you do ok. End of the day do what makes you happy be it 8th, 3rd or AoS.

Happy gaming

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:


My real point is that there are friends who are willing to cooperate to put together what both people think is a fair game with no skew, or if anything, a bias against themselves. This type of player is necessary for the success of developing self-made games in Age of Sigmar. I contend that they DO exist.

And the same could be done by a well written game with no effort on the players part. I just came from my FLGS where I watched two people with the new AOS box set (the only one sold all week) trying to come up with a balanced force. I was there for a half hour and they still hadn't started playing.

Somewhat swinging back to topic from redefining 'competitive' Wayland Games posted a pic on FB of all the copies of AoS on a table ready to be shipped, it looks like a big pile of stuff, cause it's a big box, but did a quick count and there were only around 40.

Not to say that was the total number of boxes sent, but I've seen them do similar with other big releases like Operation Icestorm, and even pics of whole lorry loads of stuff arriving for other releases.

Would be odd if the largest online retailer in the country had fewer than 50 pre orders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

*Edit* The next person who ninja's me gets a very stern private message stating my mild annoyance at being ninja'd. You've been warned.

I look forward to receiving it.