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.

Swastakowey wrote:Makes me wonder why they don't just sell from the UK instead. Not many people here seem to order from GW at all but instead go to discounters from the USA or recasts.

Funny, at the bottom of the email they had an add for stronghold assault, the short lived 6th edition book haha.

Yeah, I have wondered the same thing! I'm happy to take them at their word (the alternative being Kirby got kicked by a kangaroo), but just closing Australian operations and going mail order would seem the intelligent thing to do.

On the bright side Stronghold Assault is still current

Swastakowey wrote:Fast forward to now and they are trying to sell us a dice shaker for 88 dollars.

The shaker is pretty crazy priced everywhere. They are targeted at the same folks that buy LE books.... generous girlfriends and boyfriends!

 Talys wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:Makes me wonder why they don't just sell from the UK instead. Not many people here seem to order from GW at all but instead go to discounters from the USA or recasts.

Funny, at the bottom of the email they had an add for stronghold assault, the short lived 6th edition book haha.

Yeah, I have wondered the same thing! I'm happy to take them at their word (the alternative being Kirby got kicked by a kangaroo), but just closing Australian operations and going mail order would seem the intelligent thing to do.

On the bright side Stronghold Assault is still current

Swastakowey wrote:Fast forward to now and they are trying to sell us a dice shaker for 88 dollars.

The shaker is pretty crazy priced everywhere. They are targeted at the same folks that buy LE books.... generous girlfriends and boyfriends!

I would leave my Girlfriend if she purchased that Dice Shaker. I would be ashamed to be with someone who can't see a rip off like that from a mile away. I would also be somewhat insulted that she would spend 88 dollars on a dice shaker instead of simply giving me 88 dollars to by something worthwhile. I am exaggerating of course but I would question my future with a partner who thought it would be a good idea to buy an 88 dollar dice shaker. Thankfully my current GF has learnt to ask first since I am a hard man to buy things for.

Stronghold assault is still relevant? I thought it was all in the apocalypse book or something? I forgot the book existed and I thought it was because it was irrelevant.

Stronghold Assault is currently required to use fortifications, as it contains all the points costs.

Haldir wrote:
Yes agreed , but expressing your displeasure could be better served by emailing. GW directly. The more emails they receive the better. Right?

And can't people email GW AND discuss it in the forums? It's not like you can only do one or the other.

I really don't get this kind of censoring in the forums. Disagree with what people say or what people vent about, but don't tell them what they can or can't say. I might disagree with people but I don't tell them they should stop talking.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I would leave my Girlfriend if she purchased that Dice Shaker. I would be ashamed to be with someone who can't see a rip off like that from a mile away. I would also be somewhat insulted that she would spend 88 dollars on a dice shaker instead of simply giving me 88 dollars to by something worthwhile. I am exaggerating of course but I would question my future with a partner who thought it would be a good idea to buy an 88 dollar dice shaker. Thankfully my current GF has learnt to ask first since I am a hard man to buy things for.

Stronghold assault is still relevant? I thought it was all in the apocalypse book or something? I forgot the book existed and I thought it was because it was irrelevant.

Wow, harsh man. My wife has bought me way more useless things. And I've given her plenty of things a lot of peeps would consider useless, from jewelry to purses and shoes. Or even an expensive scarf. I personally like surprises. But whatever, to each their own relationship

Stronghold Assault is the book for fortifications (it has siege missions too). Many stores stock it, and it's directly referred to as containing most of the fortification rules in BRB.

Units include Firestorm Redoubt, Aegis Defense Line, Void Field Generator, Aquila Strongpoint, Bastion, Skyshield, etc.

You kinda need it if you want to use the Fortification slot in CAD. Well, excluding plasma obliterator

So has GW collapsed yet? let me know when it happens!

 Talys wrote:
I want to see actual plastic parts that are more complex, or as Insaniak put it, capable of dealing with undercuts in a different way. This would (truly) excite me. Like a bolter I didn't have to drill out, or fill the top and bottom of? HELL YA.

I don't know about Gundams because frankly I have zero interest in them (yeah, I'm one of those people who think they look like toys ). I actually don't know why people keep harping on about Gundams without actually demonstrating their superiority. Low res pictures of the sprue really don't demonstrate anything other than the fact they are multicoloured which in and of itself is not all that important.

But in the context of wargaming, have a look at these, this really blows me away, the track and wheel assembly on this model is one piece...


http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4715

As are the tracks on this Sherman...

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4653

The only way to get the detail on surface of those tracks is to have undercuts. This is the layouts of the sprue...





It may seem like only a small thing.... but the alternative is to have a model with no detail on the tracks (eww...) or have a 2 piece track like plastic soldier company uses (ergh...) so it really blows me away how they managed such good detail on these kits without resorting to having lots of pieces the gamer has to assemble.

 heartserenade wrote:

Haldir wrote:
Yes agreed , but expressing your displeasure could be better served by emailing. GW directly. The more emails they receive the better. Right?

And can't people email GW AND discuss it in the forums? It's not like you can only do one or the other.

I really don't get this kind of censoring in the forums. Disagree with what people say or what people vent about, but don't tell them what they can or can't say. I might disagree with people but I don't tell them they should stop talking.

Yea this is how it slowly starts.. Apologists starting to tell you this and that and what you can say and not. Screw them.

Sounds like a few of these fanbois seen too much sunlight and needs to be pushed back down to the basements that they live in for their own safety. The war is over. GW has lost. They are a non issue as "THE" modeling company and are fighting to stay alive at a level to give the illusion that they were the same company when they put out 5th ED 40K.

They are not.

The company that has benefited the most I believe from GW's downsizing is Asmodee. They are the company that better positioned themselves to take on Hasbro and Mattel with their merger with Fantasy Flight Games. That company that does both board and miniatures games.

Don't like the crap GW is putting out these days and I'm just waiting for Kirby to cash in when he retires.

What have GW lost exactly?

Talking about 'fanbois' then talking about GW losing a war

A non issue as a company as well? You'll have to clarify that chap, beyond your own opinion.

Try and make this a reasoned response please, as I'm not a 'fanboy'. I'm mostly a Malifaux player, with a smattering of Guildball, Dreadball, and soon to be KoW and Dungeon Saga.

The Division Of Joy wrote:
What have GW lost exactly?

Vast amounts of good will and momentum.

There are so many things that GW could do to save themselves but they are blindly carrying on regardless. The one and only good thing about AoS is that the rules are allegedly a living document and they are free; that's just a drop of pure water in an ocean of gak though.

Next years financial report will make interesting reading.

Hey Talys, here's some pics I took trying to get both the detail on the sprues and the articulation of the inner frame, BTW, the moving parts on the inner frame were cast that way on the sprue. I took a picture of the inner frame sprue from the book to show how they were put on the sprue, etc. Like I said, I'm in the process of putting it together.

Linking to my imgur album of the photos. http://imgur.com/a/0uIil

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

The Division Of Joy wrote:
What have GW lost exactly?

Vast amounts of good will and momentum.

There are so many things that GW could do to save themselves but they are blindly carrying on regardless. The one and only good thing about AoS is that the rules are allegedly a living document and they are free; that's just a drop of pure water in an ocean of gak though.

Next years financial report will make interesting reading.

'Good things' are subjective but..

Living Rulebook

A change in the story

Awesome new models

A game that doesn't attract WAAC players

Are four of the reasons I'll be dipping my toes into AoS. And this goes for a few at my FLGS. If I was like some on here, I'd say 'loads of people like the models, and the more casual approach is working wonders I've heard'

The Division Of Joy wrote:

A game that doesn't attract WAAC players

I'm not convinced that throwing away most of the rules and balance will prevent WAAC players. Now they can field literally anything they want, with no way to restrain them (apart from the sudden death conditions if you're more than 33% outnumbered. Which won't do anything if you're up against Nagash and 9 Greater Demons).

All the systems currently used to restrain the WAAC players have been removed.

The Division Of Joy wrote:

Living Rulebook

...With all the detail stripped out of the rules. I can't help but think of how that almost killed off Epic, until GW started adding stuff back in again to compensate for the sharp decline in interest .

A change in the story

...Which is great if you wanted a new setting to game in. Less so if you liked the old setting.

For me, it was the more or less generic fantasy-ness of the WHFB setting that made it appealing. It was a game of Elves and Dwarves and wizards fighting in a quasi-historical, almost familiar world.

Now? It's something else.

Awesome new models

...That are completely out of scale with the previous awesome models...

A game that doesn't attract WAAC players

Er .. What?

It's a game that wont attract people who like fiddly rules , certainly.

But I'm having a hard time thinking of any way that this game could have been more suited to WAAC play than it currently is .


You get people with A WAAC mentality in ANY game. Give them a game system where they can literally put whatever they want on the table ?

That's like spreading honey on your belly and then trying to cuddle a bear.

The Division Of Joy wrote:

A game that doesn't attract WAAC players

Interestingly the only WAAC players that I have met play 40K or WHFB, I have yet to encounter one that plays another system. Doubtless they exist but they certainly seem to be thinner on the ground.

Herzlos wrote:

The Division Of Joy wrote:

A game that doesn't attract WAAC players

I'm not convinced that throwing away most of the rules and balance will prevent WAAC players. Now they can field literally anything they want, with no way to restrain them (apart from the sudden death conditions if you're more than 33% outnumbered. Which won't do anything if you're up against Nagash and 9 Greater Demons).

All the systems currently used to restrain the WAAC players have been removed.

Ahh. But now, that person doing that knows he'll not get a game. Certainly in my area. I heard a good description about the organising of an AoS game. Agreeing to a social contract. This talking, and discussion will balance things enough for me. All discussion I've had (in real life, not the repetitive headbanging online) has people known for being WAAC A-holes not interested, and those interested in a narrative based game excited for a game.

I see a lot of 'this game is for kids' then people getting shouted down for saying that if you aproach from an adult attitude, it's potentially a fun game.

All I know is that I'll be buying more models that if this had been a straight up rules release. And I'm happy, as they look ace. I enjoyed the games I've played more than any Ed8 game. And the one or two snipy lads in my local store (one of which is on here), I'll enjoy the game even more as it's flying in the face of the negative attitude that ruins this hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

The Division Of Joy wrote:

A game that doesn't attract WAAC players

Interestingly the only WAAC players that I have met play 40K or WHFB, I have yet to encounter one that plays another system. Doubtless they exist but they certainly seem to be thinner on the ground.

WM has it's fair share, admittedly I've moved FLGS and it's a hell of a lot better. But I've seen more 40k and WHFB WAAC players than any other system, granted.

Now hopefully it's only 40k eh!

The Division Of Joy wrote:


Ahh. But now, that person doing that knows he'll not get a game. Certainly in my area. I heard a good description about the organising of an AoS game. Agreeing to a social contract. This talking, and discussion will balance things enough for me. All discussion I've had (in real life, not the repetitive headbanging online) has people known for being WAAC A-holes not interested, and those interested in a narrative based game excited for a game.

I see a lot of 'this game is for kids' then people getting shouted down for saying that if you aproach from an adult attitude, it's potentially a fun game.

All I know is that I'll be buying more models that if this had been a straight up rules release. And I'm happy, as they look ace. I enjoyed the games I've played more than any Ed8 game. And the one or two snipy lads in my local store (one of which is on here), I'll enjoy the game even more as it's flying in the face of the negative attitude that ruins this hobby.

Errr... wouldn't it be a lot easier if GW actually made a balanced game rather than just took rules from other companies, removed all methods of balance from those rules and threw them out and told the players to fix their broken mess?

I mean, with a balanced game you could turn up and say I want to play a 1500pt game or whatever and know that it's going to be fun. Rather than turning up and say I want to play a game using X numbers of wounds (or scrolls or whatever) and I don't want to play against an Army which is only made up of A, B, Y and Z.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

The Division Of Joy wrote:


Ahh. But now, that person doing that knows he'll not get a game. Certainly in my area. I heard a good description about the organising of an AoS game. Agreeing to a social contract. This talking, and discussion will balance things enough for me. All discussion I've had (in real life, not the repetitive headbanging online) has people known for being WAAC A-holes not interested, and those interested in a narrative based game excited for a game.

I see a lot of 'this game is for kids' then people getting shouted down for saying that if you aproach from an adult attitude, it's potentially a fun game.

All I know is that I'll be buying more models that if this had been a straight up rules release. And I'm happy, as they look ace. I enjoyed the games I've played more than any Ed8 game. And the one or two snipy lads in my local store (one of which is on here), I'll enjoy the game even more as it's flying in the face of the negative attitude that ruins this hobby.

Errr... wouldn't it be a lot easier if GW actually made a balanced game rather than just took rules from other companies, removed all methods of balance from those rules and threw them out and told the players to fix their broken mess?

I mean, with a balanced game you could turn up and say I want to play a 1500pt game or whatever and know that it's going to be fun. Rather than turning up and say I want to play a game using X numbers of wounds (or scrolls or whatever) and I don't want to play against an Army which is only made up of A, B, Y and Z.

When I play AoS it's balanced. I'm no rules genius, so I guess that's luck.

The Division Of Joy wrote:


When I play AoS it's balanced. I'm no rules genius, so I guess that's luck.

Wrong. You /feel/ that it's balanced. That's a major difference. It's like an Australian going to Europe and while Europeans are sweating at 40°, the Australian claims it's "humid". Objectively, it's still hot (above body temperature) but subjectively, the temperature is perceived as "normal" by the Australian.

The Division Of Joy wrote:


When I play AoS it's balanced. I'm no rules genius, so I guess that's luck.

How are you balancing it?

The Division Of Joy wrote:

When I play AoS it's balanced. I'm no rules genius, so I guess that's luck.

Or you're playing against friends, or at least people wanting the same thing out of the game you do.
Some of us have to just play against people we've never met at stores, or, god forbid, enjoy playing at tournaments where you might be forced to play That Guy.
The best case scenario there is you decide beforehand that you and your opponent aren't going to have fun playing each other and you don't get a game.

Alternatively, GW could put effort into balancing their game and two players could decide to play a game at a certain points limit and have a fair, fun, game no matter what*.

*(well, assuming no one is cheating or acting like a general , but a fluffy player can have a game with a competitive player and both enjoy it.)

heartserenade wrote:

Haldir wrote:
But hey if you are unhappy why are you venting here?

Because discussion forums are a place for that?

Swastakowey wrote:

Haldir wrote:
Yes agreed , but expressing your displeasure could be better served by emailing. GW directly. The more emails they receive the better. Right?

Us players in NZ and AUS organized a mailer late last year. We all got the same automated reply from GW saying the pricing is good/necessary for the company.

Fast forward to now and they are trying to sell us a dice shaker for 88 dollars.

There was also a pretty huge GW change petition not long after that got heaps of signatures.

Now they are trying to sell me 3 inches of metal for 65 dollars and trying to sell me a half assed game with 25 dollar basic sigmarines.

I would love it if GW listened to any of their customers, but I hear they pride themselves in not listening.

In short, tried your way and failed. Anyway complaining on the internet is how our club stopped GW games and played/purchased worthwhile games. So far more good has come from the complainers than talking to GW so why not continue that instead.

Suck, but oh well.

All this. QFT. Very much so. The only thing that GW listens to is their bottom line. And from the looks of things that's all that too many GW fans want to listen to, as well.

Silent Puffin? wrote:
Next years financial report will make interesting reading.

I predict a slight upwards bump from AoS starters, then business as usual. (i.e. less business) Based on... magic powers, or something.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Errr... wouldn't it be a lot easier if GW actually made a balanced game

No. It's a lot of work, actually.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


removed all methods of balance from those rules and threw them out and told the players to fix their broken mess?

You contradict yourself. How is it they remove 'all' methods of balance, but at the same time leave it in the hands of players to take the game in whatever direction they want?

Gw are not interested in 'organised play'. They're not interested in telling you 'how precisely' to play a game. As hugely flawed as their methods and their games are, they get that their customer base is a fractured mess where everyone wants something different. The only way to really cater to this and give everyone what they want is to put control of the game in the players' hands rather than gw holding their hands and telling them what to do and how to play.

Seems the players are the balancing factor. You're falling into the fallacy of believing points costs are needed and that these act as the balancing factor.. Don't get me wrong - they help greatly. But they're not strictly needed. Plenty historicals, eg hail Caesar don't use points costs at all. What gets played? What makes sense, and what's appropriate Within the context of the narrative/story you are playing. points costs work brilliantly, when used right, but often can make games stifling and rigid.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I mean, with a balanced game you could turn up and say I want to play a 1500pt game or whatever and know that it's going to be fun.

Will it though? 1500pts of x meets 1500pts of y in the wild, roll scenario and 'go'? Fine for a pick up game, and necessary for a tournament. But not all games are pick up games or tournaments. What if I want a scenario, or a campaign. Or a themed mission that isn't out of a tournament packet.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Rather than turning up and say I want to play a game using X numbers of wounds (or scrolls or whatever) and I don't want to play against an Army which is only made up of A, B, Y and Z.

Then don't play? Organise ahead f time and communicate with your opponents. If you, or he is the type of person who slaps down a dozen dragons againat your marauders, is he really the kind of guy you want to be playing. 'Don't be a dick' goes a long way...

Deadnight wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Errr... wouldn't it be a lot easier if GW actually made a balanced game

No. It's a lot of work, actually.

And that's what we're paying them for.

Gw are not interested in 'organised play'. They're not interested in telling you 'how precisely' to play a game. As hugely flawed as their methods and their games are, they get that their customer base is a fractured mess where everyone wants something different. The only way to really cater to this and give everyone what they want is to put control of the game in the players' hands rather than gw holding their hands and telling them what to do and how to play.

I can't see a free for all doing anything but driving gaming styles further apart. With everything in the rules, you've got a good starting point.

Will it though? 1500pts of x meets 1500pts of y in the wild, roll scenario and 'go'? Fine for a pick up game, and necessary for a tournament. But not all games are pick up games or tournaments. What if I want a scenario, or a campaign. Or a themed mission that isn't out of a tournament packet.

It's much easier to make a narrative game out of a balanced one by dropping the balance, than it is to start with something with no balance.

Deadnight wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Errr... wouldn't it be a lot easier if GW actually made a balanced game

No. It's a lot of work, actually.

... As hugely flawed as their methods and their games are, they get that their customer base is a fractured mess where everyone wants something different.

Funny how companies with a lot fewer resources (sometimes just one guy with a friendly local gaming group for playtesting. Playtesting! Imagine...) and sometimes with fairly large audiences of their own, manage to produce relatively tight and well-recieved games.

You contradict yourself. How is it they remove 'all' methods of balance, but at the same time leave it in the hands of players to take the game in whatever direction they want?

Er... because it's not a contradiction? They remove balancing factors and leave it up to the players to jam some back in. Simples. How many different mathammery, 'take x wounds divided by y to the coefficient of z', stopgap methods of balancing AoS have shown up just on Dakka, since the rules dropped?

You're falling into the fallacy of believing points costs are needed and that these act as the balancing factor.. Don't get me wrong - they help greatly. But they're not strictly needed. Plenty historicals, eg hail Caesar don't use points costs at all.

And players roared until Rick rolled (Rick rolled... snort guffaw) over and released several books of pointed army lists for all three of his pre-20thC rulesets.

Will it though? 1500pts of x meets 1500pts of y in the wild, roll scenario and 'go'? Fine for a pick up game, and necessary for a tournament. But not all games are pick up games or tournaments. What if I want a scenario, or a campaign. Or a themed mission that isn't out of a tournament packet.

And what if you don't want a scenario, or a campaign? That's the reason those people roared for pointed army lists. A game with a points system doesn't forbid you from playing scenarios or historic reenactments with it, but a game without a points system (or other balancing system) makes it a fair bit harder to play a simple line-em-up pickup game, or a scenario where each side takes X points of what they like. Coming up with a simple, unbalanced story is arguably more within the grasp of most gamers than performing all the playtesting themselves, in order to figure out the most appropriate points costs for all their minis.

Then don't play?

Nice.

'Don't be a dick' goes a long way...

But not all the way.

Deadnight wrote:
The only way to really cater to this and give everyone what they want is to put control of the game in the players' hands rather than gw holding their hands and telling them what to do and how to play. ...

That's not giving everyone what they want.

That's giving the people who want half a game that they can finish themselves what they want .

It's the equivalent of going to the movies , and getting half an hour of scene-setting and then just a blank screen for the next hour so that people can imagine for themselves how everything turned out.

If I want to create a game myself, I can do that without giving GW a cent .

Deadnight wrote:

No. It's a lot of work, actually.

Precisely.

Just the kind of work the largest wargaming company should be expected to put in for a flagship product.

You contradict yourself. How is it they remove 'all' methods of balance, but at the same time leave it in the hands of players to take the game in whatever direction they want?

That is not a contradiction. By removing all balancing mechanisms, it has to put it in the hands of the players because there's no way else to deal with it. What players decide to do isn't necessarily balance, and the base game has no outline for even an approximation of balance.

Gw are not interested in 'organised play'. They're not interested in telling you 'how precisely' to play a game. As hugely flawed as their methods and their games are, they get that their customer base is a fractured mess where everyone wants something different. The only way to really cater to this and give everyone what they want is to put control of the game in the players' hands rather than gw holding their hands and telling them what to do and how to play.

No, because a game that is easy to play, simple to understand, has little to no rule loopholes or vague wording, and has a tested method of determining balanced forces and an army building mechanism will work for any kind of play. No one will have to argue about what rule 'x' means, or that army 'Y' is horribly underpowered, because everything would be tested. You can still give players all the control they want and still provide a game that has frunctional rules with no ambiguity and a strong baseline to determine the relative strength of units.

Simple stuff. You can take a super ultra tournament game and play it like its mega casual, super lopsided, campaign/scenario driven truly beer and pretzels kind of game. You can't do it the opposite.

Seems the players are the balancing factor. You're falling into the fallacy of believing points costs are needed and that these act as the balancing factor.. Don't get me wrong - they help greatly. But they're not strictly needed. Plenty historicals, eg hail Caesar don't use points costs at all. What gets played? What makes sense, and what's appropriate Within the context of the narrative/story you are playing. points costs work brilliantly, when used right, but often can make games stifling and rigid.

Its not a fallacy. I see historicals thrown around a lot as a counter example. The issue is that some use a different method of 'army building', where the forces are either pre-generated for a specific scenario, or incredibly limited within a strict historical context. Playing historicals means that you're either re-enacting a specific example where the forces are already defined, or you're playing a 'what-if' scenario, but still using historical examples for what an army would have looked like in that day and age.

The same cannot be true for a fantasy game or sci-fi game. It just can't. Which means that line of thinking in the context of a fantasy or sci-fi game doesn't hold much water.

So, points costs are therefore the best option for a game that offers the players plenty of customization and free reign to build forces within some constraints. A properly done system will be heavily tested to ensure as level a playing field as possible. From there, players can either play pick-up games with equal forces, or decide to play a scenario, where they elect to have unequal forces, also based on points.

The only thing that would a game rigid would be the player's inability to think outside the box. You are always free to ignore and change whatever you like in a ruleset. Having a well implemented points system allows for all kinds of play.

Will it though? 1500pts of x meets 1500pts of y in the wild, roll scenario and 'go'? Fine for a pick up game, and necessary for a tournament. But not all games are pick up games or tournaments. What if I want a scenario, or a campaign. Or a themed mission that isn't out of a tournament packet.

You can still do that with points.

I'm not seeing the issue or your point. Just go play the scenario you want. Ignore the points. You can do what you like with the rules.

Then don't play? Organise ahead f time and communicate with your opponents. If you, or he is the type of person who slaps down a dozen dragons againat your marauders, is he really the kind of guy you want to be playing. 'Don't be a dick' goes a long way...

Making a good game also goes a long way.

I see Hail Caesar thrown around a lot as an example of a game with no points system. My copy has an army list appendix with points for Romans and Britons, and Warlord sell extremely detailed army list books containing pointed lists for all sorts of armies and historical periods.

Are other people reading a different version of Hail Caesar to the one I bought, or something?

 Da Boss wrote:
I see Hail Caesar thrown around a lot as an example of a game with no points system. My copy has an army list appendix with points for Romans and Britons, and Warlord sell extremely detailed army list books containing pointed lists for all sorts of armies and historical periods.

Are other people reading a different version of Hail Caesar to the one I bought, or something?

IIRC the core book doesn't contain points, as it's designed to be a beer & pretzel game using a GM of some sort. All of the army books have points listed.

It's fairly easy to balance anyway as the units are standardized with very few (less than 10) special rules. A large unit of Greek heavy infantry is the same as a large unit of Persian heavy infantry.

Plus with historics the majority of games are using historic orders of battle (either based on a real battle, or what was likely to be available at the time). Nor does it have demons, necromancy, monsters and so on, so there's a lot less options for including anything totally out of whack.

Since you're dealing with humans Vs humans* things are generally fairly well balanced. There is a difference between conscripts and seasoned veterans but it's nothing like the difference between a human and an oge.

*Excepting Elephants and camelry, but they aren't that common.

You cannot, seriously cannot, compare a non historical wargame with a "true" historical wargame in terms of point costs.

Even the best Spartan Warriors are simple humans with long spears and shields. They might be better fighters than the common cannon fodder of armies of the same time period, but they'll still get hurt by the same weapons, kill a person with a stroke etc.

Space Marines MIGHT fit into the "still a human" categorie, but what about a Carnifex? You cannot use the same amount of "x (spartan) is roughly the same strength as y (cannon fodder)"

It does not work.

That's why all wargames neeeeeeeeeed some kind of balancing factor. Historicals don't.

AoS fails utterly in this regard.