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.

I'm glad to hear the event is proving popular, and I hope attendance pushes GW to focus on HH even more in the future. Folk voting with their feet!

 Smacks wrote:

Nidzrule! wrote:
@Art Steventon. Another poster suggested "demonstrating" at the event.

No one suggested demonstrating at the event. However, a lot of people seem to be hard of understanding that. Providing a demonstration of what you are talking about, is a completely different realm of meaning to organising a civil protest.

Pardon us, you wrote something unclear, with a common meaning different to the one you chose, and little or no context.

Considering the tone of your post, it wasn't a massive leap to assume you meant otherwise.

Just to repeat my earlier question from 2 days go - is anyone going to the Age of Sigmar campaign weekend?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No one's put their hand up yet.

It's weird even though I haven't played WFB in about 15 yrs I still feel that getting rid of it for AoS is a strange step. I can see why they would do something similar to 40K. I mean there are good and bad points to both. But If they do it it's not like all of our old rulebooks and codices will wither to dust. We can still play the 40k we love. Just look at netepic for a case in point there. And as some of you have said there are so many other cool games out there maybe it's time to move on if we can't work round it.

Anyway I'm going to go put some grotz together lol

Nidzrule! wrote:
Just to repeat my earlier question from 2 days go - is anyone going to the Age of Sigmar campaign weekend?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No one's put their hand up yet.

I would, but I live in So-Cal

 Elblondino wrote:
It's weird even though I haven't played WFB in about 15 yrs I still feel that getting rid of it for AoS is a strange step. I can see why they would do something similar to 40K. I mean there are good and bad points to both. But If they do it it's not like all of our old rulebooks and codices will wither to dust. We can still play the 40k we love.

People always say this, but it's essentially meaningless. If you have a dedicated group of gamer friends then you can play anything you want or just make up your own game if you like. But GW is an extremely niche-oriented hobby. In most non-major cities finding a tight-knit group of GW gamers is not an option. You must go to the LGS and play against the other people who show up, because those are the only GW fans in your area. The LGS group always uses the most recent edition of whatever rules go with whatever game they're playing.
My LGS is fairly laid back but many stores only allow gamers to use their space in order to demonstrate and advertise products that the store wants to sell. If these stores catch gamers playing something that isn't even in print anymore, they will probably tell them to move along and those gamers will be banished to their respective garages and basements to play their obsolete games away from the prying eyes of the public.

In short, you can play outdated games. If you can find someone willing to play them with you then good for you. The rest of us aren't so lucky.

Warscrolls for 40K would be awesome....points would be good though.

Don't know if you played magic the gathering back in the day, but there were no deck building rules or points per card yet it was still easy to sit down with anyone else who played and have a fun game.

And points don't balance a game anyway, its just a justification to say 'I beat you fair and square' when really it wasn't fair at all.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
Pardon us, you wrote something unclear, with a common meaning different to the one you chose, and little or no context.

Considering the tone of your post, it wasn't a massive leap to assume you meant otherwise.

I apologise for the original ambiguity. It did not occur to me that the phrase "demonstrate what's wrong" would be interpreted any other way than "provide an example of what's wrong". When I ask someone to demonstrate something for me, I don't usually expect them to form a picket line and begin chanting "WHAT DO WE WANT! Less long division! WHEN DO WE WANT IT! now!". Even though demonstrate can mean that, it's not the first thing that usually comes to mind.

I concede though that it may have been ambiguous given the subject at hand. If the meaning was unclear then it was my fault, not yours. However, my post where I said: demonstrate as in "give a practical exhibition of" / "illustrate", not "protest" really should have cleared up any ambiguity. So there was no reason for the misunderstanding to keep being perpetuated, other than the usual lack of reading comprehension.

I started boycotting Throne of Skulls events when they made the favorite game votes count for more than actual wins.

Why couldn't they have one tournament that is based on Favorite Game votes and another where its just points won.

This new 'bring your whole collection' is insanity. But fine, I just won't go.

Attendance at this event is not really likely to affect GW's 'plan' for AoS. I think the -only- true indicator of that will be actual AoS sales.

Let's say you were lucky enough to convince -every single player- to boycott the event at Warhammer World. Do you think GW is going to go, "Oh wow! We were WRONG!" No. They have their plan and they're apparently pretty fully committed to it.

RIP WHFB.

BUT... whether or not 40K gets "Sigmar'd" depends on AoS sales. If AoS sells like gangbusters and approaches or the Four Gods forbid, surpasses 40K sales, then you can probably start eBaying your stuff at that point. But if AoS sells poorly - WHY would GW Sigmar their flagship?

So really, the next 6 months or so will tell us a lot, and next year this time we'll be discussing how AWESOME AoS sold... or what a flop it is, and by then we'll have a much better picture.

Please GW , will you AOS 40K!!! Sooner the better ! Do what you do best , awesome models awesome fluff and some basic rules that are doable. Leave the actual game design to the online community so we can Forge our own Narrative !! This boycott stuff is ridiculous , remember AOS rules are free . So if you don`t like the FREE rules then don`t use them. If you don`t like it don`t play , why all the nerd rage??

So to sum this all up: "why won't people play with their toys the way I want them to!?!"

Haldir wrote:
Please GW , will you AOS 40K!!! Sooner the better ! Do what you do best , awesome models awesome fluff and some basic rules that are doable. Leave the actual game design to the online community so we can Forge our own Narrative !! This boycott stuff is ridiculous , remember AOS rules are free . So if you don`t like the FREE rules then don`t use them. If you don`t like it don`t play , why all the nerd rage??

Our group is already talking about just not dealing with points anymore. We have three thoughts on how we are going to do it.
1] Bring one Detachment of lets say with 8-10 units.
2] I place a Unit, He places a unit and go back and forth until we feel there is enough of the "Table"
3] Just bring One or two Formations

cause grots are equal to marines....

If there are no points, then its pointless as a game.

 Ravenous D wrote:
cause grots are equal to marines....

If there are no points, then its pointless as a game.

Bad Pun Is Bad...

You are not going to see 10 grots vs 10 Marines though.
It is going to be a full sized 33+ model Mob including Handlers and Squigs vs. the 10 Model Tactical Squad.

^Something to think about:
Compare a full Tactical Squad to a full Devastator Centurion Squad, Ravenwing Command Squad or Vindicator Squadron.
Still only one squad, but none of those others are equivalent to a Tac Squad.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
^Something to think about:
Compare a full Tactical Squad to a full Devastator Centurion Squad, Ravenwing Command Squad or Vindicator Squadron.
Still only one squad, but none of those others are equivalent to a Tac Squad.

Yes I know that.
I also make the assumption that people I Choose to play with are there to have fun and are playing the Grots because they like the unit [Fluff/Rules/Whatever] and are playing them because they just like them, just like I like running my Tactical Squads.

That is a fair assumption but it doesn't solve the issue:
1) That would mean that the "weaker" units would only be usable just for a lark and never anything else
2) Even without people intentionally trying to screw each other over it would be hard to get a fair match up anyway. If I want to use a small number of strong units and the other wants a larger number of weak units this doesn't work because each unit is worth more for me than him. Even beyond that, even comparable things aren't always worth the same. Ravenwing Black Knights are more powerful than ordinary Ravenwing Bikers (which is why they cost more points) but not SO much as to be in a whole different league. One could try and balance it with gauging unit worth... But that's really just getting back to points or at least something similar.

The points system was not fully balanced as of 8th edition. I think the majority of people can accept that. There were strong units and poor units - that's why listbuilding became a skill. You have that issue with 40k 7th edition.

However, this is not to say that GW should have completely abandoned the point system - which they have with AoS. That is why there are alternative events where there is a level of comp (including Nova and BAO) where the community has had to self regulate in order to get the game to a more balanced state that clearly works for all the people who signed up to go - even if there are others who disagree with it.

I think the majority of gamers - be they fluff or competitive, want a fair game. But the important caveat also is that we would like a fair game where most of the time is also spent playing the game, rather than structuring the game.

The ideal situation would be a points based system that perfectly simulated the value of units and therefore can be easily used to get a 'fair game'. The issue is that for AoS GW has given up on any system of balance. Balance is now put entirely on the shoulders of the players. Deciding balance takes time. Also what's fair or fluffy for you is not the same for someone else. People bring up strawman examples like 30 Bloodthirsters vs 30 goblins. That's never going to happen in reality or even if it did, the perpetrator would be slapped down quickly. The issue would be over the gray lines. For example, I've decided to include a hydra in my DE army. Sounds pretty fair for the opponent to bring in something like a HE prince on a griffon right? Well the hydra is a lot better than the griffon. If I were the HE player, I could do the following things:

1. Insist that the hydra is more powerful and say I need to bring something else along with it. Then we'd have to negotiate whether the additional unit I've brought is appropriate

2. Let it go. I dont want to be THAT guy and let it be. But I know that the game is tilted in his favour. But what's my objective for the game? Its for me to win right? Not really, my objective now is to try and win cooperatively? To not be the proverbial THAT guy but still win. Truth is that I'd be cool with that but not every single time. I'm not a saint. I just want things to be fair.

3. Retaliate with putting down a HE prince on a dragon instead or something clearly more powerful. Then say points dont matter. At which point we'd probably have one game but that guy thinks I'm THAT guy. Not a good route.

Route 1 is best in terms of getting to a compromise. But it will take time with someone who you are not familiar with. Route 2 is second best in result but you let it go and you dont waste additional time. Route 3 is me abusing the rules but I get an advantage with downside of losing games in the future.

All these routes are suboptimal. GW can try to give us a points system. At the very least run events that do not only cater to those who want to play a freeform campaign, RPG like event, but also the possibility of playing a more structured, competitive event. What would be the downside for their sales? MV Brandt basically does both types of events at NOVA because he understands that different people, have different requirements. Now that AoS has lost the points system, its difficult to run an alternative style event.

@ Mort. I have always suspected that Warhammer World events are used as a forum for market research. Despite the oft quoted phrase from Kirby about market research, he is interested in enriching himself and doing NO research makes no sense at all. Whether he does enough or whether his approach is correct - another matter entirely. The ToS events rulespacks went through the following phases:

1. At around end of 5th edition, ToSs were swiss pairing affairs. However, scoring was based on the relative performance of your army versus the same faction. The winner was the won who did the best compared to the average of the other armies in the same faction. This was done to alleviate the issues of a slow release schedule that left some armies very weak and reintroduce army diversity. Debatable how successful this was. Favourite game votes played a substantial part in determining who won but gaming wins did too. Btw, this was a W/L/D system with no variation in quality of win.

2. Start of 6th edition with allies. Still swiss pairing affairs with the same best of army point calculations. However, some people starting abusing the ally rules. Also the events team decided that the atmosphere at the top tables was not good and not in the spirit of the game. As a result, swiss pairing went out of the window. Later on, more concrete ToS event rules on allies were introduced, beyond what was in the 6th ed rulebook (to prevent SoB armies that had 300 points of models but with 1200 pts of necrons for example, which DID happen at one of the events)

3. Interestingly 7th edition appeared and allies rules become considerably more codified. WHW went under construction. When ToSs resumed this year, a new paradigm. No more old best of army points calculations. It is now entirely favourite game vote based. A tie in favourite game votes meant the VPs would be considered as a secondary tiebreaker

4. This fourth phase sees a lot more twists on ToS. There's a vehicle friendly ToS. Horus Heresy Throne of Skulls appears in tandem with AoS. It is also the first ToS to have a varying range of points levels (from 2000 pts and up) rather than a set point level.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
That is a fair assumption but it doesn't solve the issue:
1) That would mean that the "weaker" units would only be usable just for a lark and never anything else
2) Even without people intentionally trying to screw each other over it would be hard to get a fair match up anyway. If I want to use a small number of strong units and the other wants a larger number of weak units this doesn't work because each unit is worth more for me than him. Even beyond that, even comparable things aren't always worth the same. Ravenwing Black Knights are more powerful than ordinary Ravenwing Bikers (which is why they cost more points) but not SO much as to be in a whole different league. One could try and balance it with gauging unit worth... But that's really just getting back to points or at least something similar.

With going to a Pointless system though just getting back to points changes completely. It also will depend on your local META and Mindset of the Gamers.
My group looks at the possible changes with hope, but we do not play like a lot of other groups...at least like the ones I keep reading here.
We like to play what we want to play and a Unit's 'Effectiveness vs. Points' is not even secondary. Some time I want to play my Grey Hunters and sometime I want to just play my Sternguard and others my Rough Riders. One of our Players wants to play his Razorback/Melta SPAM and others times an all Dreadnaught Army. That is just how we play. AoS/4ok would change little other than we would not be spending time working out our list.

AoS took around 3 yrs to develop. If 40k goes the same way, it'll already be underway, but probably 2 years away until release. I really, really wouldn't be surprised if it does, although an end times scale introduction that advances the story would be most welcome.

You can see the progression of the events becoming more and more freeform as time has gone on.

I suspect that WHW represents a "laboratory" for management/ designers and use the trends that are observed to extrapolate to the general populace - which they have not made an attempt to contact in any meaningful way. I agree with you Mort that sales will play a part in a decision made, but WHW events give a view into how a subsector of the gaming population reacts to particular design decisions at Nottingham itself. Not saying that its a good way, but I am convinced that WHW fulfils a market research role, at least partially.

 Anpu42 wrote:
With going to a Pointless system though just getting back to points changes completely. It also will depend on your local META and Mindset of the Gamers.

What I was trying to say with that was actually that it's going back to doing what points are supposed to do: gauge relative worth of units and such.
While you might be happy not gauging that, even with what you've said where you just play what you want, some sort of balancing mechanism is needed to tell you how much of that you need and such.
Points are really the best way to do it, but without them there has to be some sort of balancing mechanism to do their job.

Nidzrule! wrote:
You can see the progression of the events becoming more and more freeform as time has gone on.

I suspect that WHW represents a "laboratory" for management/ designers and use the trends that are observed to extrapolate to the general populace - which they have not made an attempt to contact in any meaningful way. I agree with you Mort that sales will play a part in a decision made, but WHW events give a view into how a subsector of the gaming population reacts to particular design decisions at Nottingham itself. Not saying that its a good way, but I am convinced that WHW fulfils a market research role, at least partially.

In so much as any other GW store does.
Be aware that a good half of the people playing and shopping there are just regular locals who turn up regardless. Because if you live in Nottingham, and you want to play 40K, they have by far the best tables. The tournaments are usually made up of a goodly percentage of repeat players as well. I go to play roughly fortnightly, and I have friends who go weekly, and there are folk I recognise.

Their event days and exclusive stores are probably more useful a measuring system as to what people want.

I think my post got truncated. We are in agreement on this one point Buttery Commissar - WHW events, be it ToS or a Campaign event give the designers or management a view as to how the market has reacted to various changes. Tournaments, like you say, have quite a number of repeat players. With dropping attendance numbers though, it looks to be more a core base now that is driving and sustaining the ToS philosophy. I am not sure how much of drop would need to take place before a realisation that perhaps different types of events will cater to different types of players - therefore capturing a larger share of the market.

Btw the crash on the ToS event for HH was caused by a glitch in the system rather than a total sellout as published on the WHW website. Remains to be seen how many people will eventually turn up. It's an interesting experiment but I am afraid what conclusions GWHQ will draw from it.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
With going to a Pointless system though just getting back to points changes completely. It also will depend on your local META and Mindset of the Gamers.

What I was trying to say with that was actually that it's going back to doing what points are supposed to do: gauge relative worth of units and such.
While you might be happy not gauging that, even with what you've said where you just play what you want, some sort of balancing mechanism is needed to tell you how much of that you need and such.
Points are really the best way to do it, but without them there has to be some sort of balancing mechanism to do their job.

From what some of the others have been saying the War-Scroll Formations seemed to be balanced with each other.

As for true balancing [Insert Shrug Icon] some groups may Need Points, then some groups don't.

@XT 1984 I dont know if I've met you at any previous events. I echo your sentiment on event diversity. The guys who want more structured events can have their own party as well as those who want something more freeform. No need to comment which is 'better'. Everyone likes playing games their in a particular way - ultimately if its a profit issue, the attendance numbers for each event will be the conclusive arbiter.

Again though, I fear where 40k is going and I would be puzzled by why 40k would voluntarily cede ground to other wargames with poorer background (YMMV of course) but more solid rules sets.

 Anpu42 wrote:
From what some of the others have been saying the War-Scroll Formations seemed to be balanced with each other.

As for true balancing [Insert Shrug Icon] some groups may Need Points, then some groups don't.

I don't know what those are but they aren't what 40k use.

In any case, it all comes back to the point that you'll always need some kind of balancing mechanism, if not points then maybe something like all the units in a particular slot being balanced against each other and each plays gets a certain amounts of each kind of slot to use, just as an example.

I'd still say points are the best one just because of how flexible it is and how easy it makes it to balance things (if nothing else you can just price up OP stuff and price down weak stuff), just an issue that GW was doing it wrong a lot.

But I totally could handle another balancing mechanism if it worked. Issue is that AOS has NONE and if they did it to 40k I'm not sure I trust them to add one.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
From what some of the others have been saying the War-Scroll Formations seemed to be balanced with each other.

As for true balancing [Insert Shrug Icon] some groups may Need Points, then some groups don't.

I don't know what those are but they aren't what 40k use.

In any case, it all comes back to the point that you'll always need some kind of balancing mechanism, if not points then maybe something like all the units in a particular slot being balanced against each other and each plays gets a certain amounts of each kind of slot to use, just as an example.

I'd still say points are the best one just because of how flexible it is and how easy it makes it to balance things (if nothing else you can just price up OP stuff and price down weak stuff), just an issue that GW was doing it wrong a lot.

But I totally could handle another balancing mechanism if it worked. Issue is that AOS has NONE and if they did it to 40k I'm not sure I trust them to add one.

In the back of each army's War-Scroll is one or more 'Organizations' [The AoS term for Formations I guess] that is like:
Take 1 Hero
Take 3 Units
Take 1 Monster
ans then some special rules for unit in the 'Organization'

I see, something based on that could potentially work, though it would have to be done quite carefully.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
I see, something based on that could potentially work, though it would have to be done quite carefully.

And would restrict army creation more than a points system.