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.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It makes no sense for GW to get back to the tournament scene. The competitive scene is compromised of well-educated players who think before buying and are resistant to "wooo flashy!" stuff. They play the game for the game, not primarily the models, and that's the part where GW keeps failing hard for quite a few years now. It's like asking Facebook to embrace privacy again.

Yeah, why would GW want to get back a significant portion of customers? I mean, even if you're willing to buy into the 20% number, that number alone should be worth consideration. Especially when you can easily force competitive players to buy multiple big kits with each new release (E.g the new Tau squadron rules that grant +1BS, etc...) GW could maintain a moderately balanced version of FB or AoS or 40k for tournament players and at the same time launch incentives for players who don't really have much to look for in tournaments. If they cared enough to try.

As Bottle said, the two are not mutually exclusive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What makes no sense to me is how GW is willing to lose at least a fifth of their customer base in an action that is the opposite of good management. (I am saying this because I believe that full 40k AoSification is really just a matter of months.)

GW should move to include both sides of the hobby and help them grow together, not ostracize and ultimately sacrifice the one they perceive as the smaller of the two.

I would imagine because in any regular understanding of the term 'tournament', there is by definition a winner.
Which means that the aim is winning.

This is not a bad thing in and of itself. I certainly don't subscribe to the view that people should get medals just for turning up.

However, GW haven't abandoned the organised play scene. They simply changed the intent.
They no longer do tournaments, but what they do instead is events where the intent is to have fun, enjoy some games, and -most importantly for their view, I would imagine - play the games for the sake of playing the games.
Sportsmanship and modelling skills are what's rewarded.

I know plenty will disagree and that's fine.
But I remember a teenage me who was acknowledged as being the first person to break an army list, the one who spotted the horrific combinations first, and to whom winning was the whole point. And looking back, I never really enjoyed it.

AoS brought back my interest in gaming because it doesn't appeal to that kid any more - it appeals to the guy who just want to make the most of his leisure time by having fun without worrying about composition or points efficiency or stuff like that. I know that AoS isn't the first game to do that approach, but it was the first one that did that I knew other people would play in my neck of the woods.

But I remember a teenage me who was acknowledged as being the first person to break an army list, the one who spotted the horrific combinations first, and to whom winning was the whole point. And looking back, I never really enjoyed it.

I dedicated nearly a decade to this (all of my 20s) and I have to say what you wrote strikes a chord with me because I feel the same way as well.

For all of the 90s and most of the 2000s I played strictly to win, as long as it was legal, I would do it.

It was fun for the first few years, but I ended up leaving the game for a while because after a while it lost its fun I guess, facing the same lists, using the same lists... i drifted more toward the social and hobby aspect and thats also what I enjoy more, which is why AoS does not bother me as much (the lack of balance mechanism does still because I like games that are not one sided)

 Sigvatr wrote:
It makes no sense for GW to get back to the tournament scene. The competitive scene is compromised of well-educated players who think before buying and are resistant to "wooo flashy!" stuff. They play the game for the game, not primarily the models, and that's the part where GW keeps failing hard for quite a few years now. It's like asking Facebook to embrace privacy again.

Are you suggesting that non-competitive players are uninformed and easily distracted by shiny things? Because that feels a bit dismissive and completely ignorant.

Maybe it's time to call a truce between competitive players and non-competitive players.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The competitive scene is compromised of well-educated players who think before buying and are resistant to "wooo flashy!" stuff.

Oh, yes! These well-educated players also happen to make well educated purchases of about 500 rhinos, 10 planes because while they recognize the superior rules they are also very much into that particular rhino model

They play the game for the game, not primarily the models,

Definitely valid, and thats also the source of most issues people have with each other (the other side that play for the fluff and models facing off against someone that plays for the game for the sake of being a game and happy to use wooden pogs)

Two different approaches that seem very much at odds with each other unfortunately.

auticus wrote:

They play the game for the game, not primarily the models,

Definitely valid, and thats also the source of most issues people have with each other (the other side that play for the fluff and models facing off against someone that plays for the game for the sake of being a game and happy to use wooden pogs)

Two different approaches that seem very much at odds with each other unfortunately.

I think you're forgetting an important group - the people who want to play the game for the sake of being a game with the models. It's the loss of this group that will be hurting GW financials the most as, like you said, some players that play the game for its sake will use wooden pogs. It's this forgotten group that has stopped purchasing models, not the ones who didn't purchase them to begin with. I am in that group and I would be happy to buy the models if the game (fluff and crunch) was good.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

auticus wrote:

They play the game for the game, not primarily the models,

Definitely valid, and thats also the source of most issues people have with each other (the other side that play for the fluff and models facing off against someone that plays for the game for the sake of being a game and happy to use wooden pogs)

Two different approaches that seem very much at odds with each other unfortunately.

I think you're forgetting an important group - the people who want to play the game for the sake of being a game with the models. It's the loss of this group that will be hurting GW financials the most as, like you said, some players that play the game for its sake will use wooden pogs. It's this forgotten group that has stopped purchasing models, not the ones who didn't purchase them to begin with. I am in that group and I would be happy to buy the models if the game (fluff and crunch) was good.

I'm not sure this will be as big a loss as it could be - most of folks that I know who jumped ship to KoW still purchase (and plan to continue doing so) their models from GW because Mantic's models are sub-par. So while they prefer a different game system, they still would rather play that new game system with GW miniatures.

Yeah the jury is out on that. If you read warseer, all of the anti-GW folks there are daily posting about how they do nothing buy buy KOW models to support Mantic and won't touch GW models again.

I know locally the tournament scene appears to be moving towards KOW but the guys playing it haven't bought any new models, they are just using the mantic rulebook.

quiestdeus wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

auticus wrote:

They play the game for the game, not primarily the models,

Definitely valid, and thats also the source of most issues people have with each other (the other side that play for the fluff and models facing off against someone that plays for the game for the sake of being a game and happy to use wooden pogs)

Two different approaches that seem very much at odds with each other unfortunately.

I think you're forgetting an important group - the people who want to play the game for the sake of being a game with the models. It's the loss of this group that will be hurting GW financials the most as, like you said, some players that play the game for its sake will use wooden pogs. It's this forgotten group that has stopped purchasing models, not the ones who didn't purchase them to begin with. I am in that group and I would be happy to buy the models if the game (fluff and crunch) was good.

I'm not sure this will be as big a loss as it could be - most of folks that I know who jumped ship to KoW still purchase (and plan to continue doing so) their models from GW because Mantic's models are sub-par. So while they prefer a different game system, they still would rather play that new game system with GW miniatures.

Not that I was talking specifically about KoW's impact as this is related to the FB-AoS transition... The current situation you describe is a curious side effect of Mantic feeding off of GW's models... as now it'll be GW feeding off of Mantic's rule system... for as long as Mantic allows it. An interesting reversal.

Yes no doubt players who play KoW will buy from GW until their KoW armies are finished. But then what? And what will happen once the ongoing GW product rescaling ends? What if Mantis decides it's time to start pumping out better models, at a cheaper price?

In the end, the loss of a whole fifth of a playerbase cannot be simply written off like that. It's the beginning of a market share shift - a considerable one, at that - which was stupidly initiated by GW.

auticus wrote:
Yeah the jury is out on that. If you read warseer, all of the anti-GW folks there are daily posting about how they do nothing buy buy KOW models to support Mantic and won't touch GW models again.

I know locally the tournament scene appears to be moving towards KOW but the guys playing it haven't bought any new models, they are just using the mantic rulebook.

Yeah, I totally hear you auticus. I tend to believe what I actually see happening rather than internet rumblings. So minus that one gentleman who set fire to his dark elves, I have seen the latter (grab the Mantic rules to continue to play with GW models) much more than the former.

RoperPG wrote:


However, GW haven't abandoned the organised play scene. They simply changed the intent.
They no longer do tournaments, but what they do instead is events where the intent is to have fun, enjoy some games, and -most importantly for their view, I would imagine - play the games for the sake of playing the games.
Sportsmanship and modelling skills are what's rewarded.

Playing in tournaments and having fun are not mutually exclusive.

 Grimtuff wrote:

RoperPG wrote:


However, GW haven't abandoned the organised play scene. They simply changed the intent.
They no longer do tournaments, but what they do instead is events where the intent is to have fun, enjoy some games, and -most importantly for their view, I would imagine - play the games for the sake of playing the games.
Sportsmanship and modelling skills are what's rewarded.

Playing in tournaments and having fun are not mutually exclusive.

Apparently, you can't do the following at tournaments:
Have fun
Enjoy some games
Play the games for the sake of playing games
Be rewarded for good sportsmanship/modelling/painting

Roper, have you actually ever been to a tournament?

 infinite_array wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

RoperPG wrote:


However, GW haven't abandoned the organised play scene. They simply changed the intent.
They no longer do tournaments, but what they do instead is events where the intent is to have fun, enjoy some games, and -most importantly for their view, I would imagine - play the games for the sake of playing the games.
Sportsmanship and modelling skills are what's rewarded.

Playing in tournaments and having fun are not mutually exclusive.

Apparently, you can't do the following at tournaments:
Have fun
Enjoy some games
Play the games for the sake of playing games
Be rewarded for good sportsmanship/modelling/painting

Roper, have you actually ever been to a tournament?

Yup, I can count on one hand the amount of tournaments I've attended, and I've enjoyed all but 1 of them. Every single one I went in trying to win it but that wasn't the only goal. I came out with the best army award at two of them and both of those were better than winning the whole thing for me.

Our competitive scene here in the NW is moving over to KoW,myself included.

However we also have a slow but steady interest in regular AoS games as well.Mostly players are looking for a light and fun fluff oriented gaming session,a break from the hyper focused competitive sessions so to speak

And yes,I really don't want to have to turn to mantic for their models.Not sure what the deal is with the KoW line but from what I can see with my Basilean Mega Army KS lot I have,the models are rather disappointing.
However with the Deadzone starter,the models are actually pretty good.
Either way Mantic still doesn't come close to GW especially when compared to the AoS models..Im not ruling out mantic for any model purchases but I will mainly be sticking with GW.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

RoperPG wrote:


However, GW haven't abandoned the organised play scene. They simply changed the intent.
They no longer do tournaments, but what they do instead is events where the intent is to have fun, enjoy some games, and -most importantly for their view, I would imagine - play the games for the sake of playing the games.
Sportsmanship and modelling skills are what's rewarded.

Playing in tournaments and having fun are not mutually exclusive.

Apparently, you can't do the following at tournaments:
Have fun
Enjoy some games
Play the games for the sake of playing games
Be rewarded for good sportsmanship/modelling/painting

Roper, have you actually ever been to a tournament?

Yup, I can count on one hand the amount of tournaments I've attended, and I've enjoyed all but 1 of them. Every single one I went in trying to win it but that wasn't the only goal. I came out with the best army award at two of them and both of those were better than winning the whole thing for me.

Way to snip away context, cheers both.
My point was that in a traditional tournament format, there is a winner, which is determined by competitive success.
When GW stopped having competitive tournaments' and winners, and moved to 'events', they effectively stated their intent that their games were not to be played to be won or lost, but 'enjoyed'.
At no point did I state that it wasn't possible to have fun at a tournament - just that GW think that competitive play is not for them, for some reason.

And you've just said again. Apparently winning and losing the game is mutually exclusive to having enjoyment in the game.

No context clipping. Nothing. Right there.

 Grimtuff wrote:
And you've just said again. Apparently winning and losing the game is mutually exclusive to having enjoyment in the game.

No context clipping. Nothing. Right there.

Wow, seriously?
I'm presuming you mean this?
"When GW stopped having competitive tournaments' and winners, and moved to 'events', they effectively stated their intent that their games were not to be played to be won or lost, but 'enjoyed'. "
I really don't know how to make it any clearer. GW appear to have problem with the concept of winners and losers, as they stopped doing in-house competitive play. I presume that is because they, not me, have decided that people playing to win damages the game, or some similar notion. Either way, take away winning/losing, you're left with just enjoying the game, and it's this that GW appear to want to focus on.
In absolutely no part of any of my posts have I stated my belief to be the same, or that the concepts are mutually exclusive.

edit:posted while incredulous

Its hard to draw conclusions from the data we have... I mean for all we know the overall drop in sales has nothing to do with the systems themselves but the fact that today everyone is doing plastics and there are LOADS of Kickstarters doing millions...
AOS is only a few months of life so it will take time, but even then there are no way for us to know if for each hardcore player that left who buys 100 minis there are 10 casual gamers that buy 10 minis.

I believe GW is declining for many different reasons and yeah I would like that game rules would cover a larger audience, a tournament pack would go a long way to include more people in but that would mean a serious investment in playtesting and balancing etc, I think they are more inclined to just invest in more miniatures.

Why does any one need GW to provide a tourney pack? These supposed well educated players who make up the tourney scene are incapable are they?

What have TOs done in the past - provided a parameter for 'size' of game, via points and parameters around comp if they think something gets in the way of 'good tourney games' ,e.g. no named heroes etc.

What is so different about AOS? A TO provides parameter for size of game, wounds/models/scrolls or whatever, and some comp like no names heroes or monster limits or whatever. At that point you have the most perfectly balanced setup possible. Everyone has access to the same model range and warscrolls, everyone can mix and match stuff as they want everyone works with the same TO set parameters. Just like before. It is then just down to the player to design his tourney winning list.

What points provide is a way to say X number of gobbos are equalish to Y Elves etc. That, however, is a solution to a different problem and isn't needed to run a tournament where everyone enters with the same chance of winning as anyone else (skill allowing)

That points system is best provided by the same educated players who want that sort of system. They know what they want in terms of tourney style which will possible affect points of some stuff, they will be the ones complaining about X,Y or Z being over or under powered and they are the ones best placed to correct such beliefs in their own system that they designed with their ideal of a tourney in mind.

For some, GW providing a tournament pack makes them supporting tournaments "official", which is something that a lot of people require. The stamp of officialdom.

Same reason why perfectly good games die when they are no longer "official".

puree wrote:
Why does any one need GW to provide a tourney pack? These supposed well educated players who make up the tourney scene are incapable are they?

What have TOs done in the past - provided a parameter for 'size' of game, via points and parameters around comp if they think something gets in the way of 'good tourney games' ,e.g. no named heroes etc.

What is so different about AOS? A TO provides parameter for size of game, wounds/models/scrolls or whatever, and some comp like no names heroes or monster limits or whatever. At that point you have the most perfectly balanced setup possible. Everyone has access to the same model range and warscrolls, everyone can mix and match stuff as they want everyone works with the same TO set parameters. Just like before. It is then just down to the player to design his tourney winning list.

What points provide is a way to say X number of gobbos are equalish to Y Elves etc. That, however, is a solution to a different problem and isn't needed to run a tournament where everyone enters with the same chance of winning as anyone else (skill allowing)

That points system is best provided by the same educated players who want that sort of system. They know what they want in terms of tourney style which will possible affect points of some stuff, they will be the ones complaining about X,Y or Z being over or under powered and they are the ones best placed to correct such beliefs in their own system that they designed with their ideal of a tourney in mind.

The argument is that GW as publisher are best placed to ensure the rules are clear, the units are properly balanced and tournaments have a sound basis for organisation.

The counter-argument is that GW has determined that tournament style play is the work of Satan and must be expunged from the pure narrative game experience of AoS.

I think the really competitive players will just move over to Kings of War.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

puree wrote:
Why does any one need GW to provide a tourney pack? These supposed well educated players who make up the tourney scene are incapable are they?

What have TOs done in the past - provided a parameter for 'size' of game, via points and parameters around comp if they think something gets in the way of 'good tourney games' ,e.g. no named heroes etc.

What is so different about AOS? A TO provides parameter for size of game, wounds/models/scrolls or whatever, and some comp like no names heroes or monster limits or whatever. At that point you have the most perfectly balanced setup possible. Everyone has access to the same model range and warscrolls, everyone can mix and match stuff as they want everyone works with the same TO set parameters. Just like before. It is then just down to the player to design his tourney winning list.

What points provide is a way to say X number of gobbos are equalish to Y Elves etc. That, however, is a solution to a different problem and isn't needed to run a tournament where everyone enters with the same chance of winning as anyone else (skill allowing)

That points system is best provided by the same educated players who want that sort of system. They know what they want in terms of tourney style which will possible affect points of some stuff, they will be the ones complaining about X,Y or Z being over or under powered and they are the ones best placed to correct such beliefs in their own system that they designed with their ideal of a tourney in mind.

The argument is that GW as publisher are best placed to ensure the rules are clear, the units are properly balanced and tournaments have a sound basis for organisation.

The counter-argument is that GW has determined that tournament style play is the work of Satan and must be expunged from the pure narrative game experience of AoS.

I think the really competitive players will just move over to Kings of War.

I think you could probably remove 'really' from that last sentence.

The counter-argument is that GW has determined that tournament style play is the work of Satan and must be expunged from the pure narrative game experience of AoS.

It might be others, but it isn't mine. Tournaments do not need points, it is not necessary that units are balanced with each other. For years players have been playing with a system they regularly say is broken in that regard. That didn't make the tournies imbalanced as everyone works from the same set of parameters, each person decides whether he can make use of whatever unit. At the point you enter a tourney you are all in the same position.

If I said I was running a tourney of AOS and you could use a max of 100 models/wounds/scrolls and no special characters then you'd be in the same boat as I saying I was running a 2000pt no special character WFB tourney. Points have determined the size of the games not whether you will get a balanced game. You can probably assume that anyone else entering with any serious intent to do well in the tourney will look for the OP units and combos that we all know GW will not worry about, yet has some how not stopped tourneys in the past. You will get reasonably balanced games if you are expecting to play against competitive players.

Equally what unit is balanced against others can depend heavily on what comp rules and game size you have. Only the TOs can decide those things, there's a staggering difference between 50 clanrats backed by the hero and 1 unit of 15 clan rats, but points for clan rats combined with game size may make one very hard to field in one tourney whilst being OP at another game size. Points are useful for some styles of play, but they have little to do with tournament. Those wanting points for tournaments are not really after points for tourneys, they are after a specific style of game, that they then want to play in a tourney as well. There is nothing wrong with that desire, but it is somewhat disingenuous to say it is needed for tournaments as a generalization.

You know what I don't see in that argument, a way to host an AoS tourney that is fair and doesn't require someone 'fix' the product GW has released.

Saying everyone has access to the same things 1) is a terrible meta as it'll just mean you bring the most OP things and everyone will do exactly that, and 2) about as pay to win as you can get short of literally handing the TO money until he declarers you the winner.

Technically even saying 100 wounds/models/etc is still trying to 'fix' the rules, as they are not in the core rules, and clearly not how GW indented the game to be played.

Do you understand that when people complained about balance in WHFB it wasn't some kind of admittance that the game is imbalanced and so we should move on?
It was a criticism, it was people saying they dislike that and want it fixed. Balance is also not a yes/no proposition, it is possible for WHFB to be unbalanced, and for AoS to be even more unbalanced.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Technically even saying 100 wounds/models/etc is still trying to 'fix' the rules, as they are not in the core rules, and clearly not how GW indented the game to be played.

Since GW has, in fact, used such a standard in their own rules, I'd say it probably is pretty close to how they intended for the game to be played.

This of it like bottom up game design. The core four pages + warscrolls represent the core gameplay of AoS. The next layer up is stuff like Battalions and Time of War rules. Then Scenarios and Scenery rules. Then the School League rules or other comp systems. You can continue building on top of the layer cake with new layers that add or ever overrule things from the lower layers, but it shouldn't be seen as an attempt to "fix" anything - more like customize it. The AoS rules are purposely slim and modular to facilitate this customization and give players more power in how they can enjoy the game.

You know what I don't see in that argument, a way to host an AoS tourney that is fair and doesn't require someone 'fix' the product GW has released.

It is perfectly fair. You are exactly the same position as everyone else. Nothing needs fixing. What is your definition of fair if it is not having the same ability to field an army as good as someone else. I don't think you are grasping that fair does not require a very specific army building system.

Saying everyone has access to the same things 1) is a terrible meta as it'll just mean you bring the most OP things and everyone will do exactly that, and 2) about as pay to win as you can get short of literally handing the TO money until he declarers you the winner.

This is the exact same condition WFB tourneys were held under. You all had access to the same units and choose what you wanted. No matter what you choose you had to be able pay to win because if you didn't own it you couldn't field it, whether you are paying for an uber model or 100 gobbos you are paying to have a chance at winning. Points in no way alter either of the those things.

Technically even saying 100 wounds/models/etc is still trying to 'fix' the rules, as they are not in the core rules, and clearly not how GW indented the game to be played.

That is nothing to do with fixing any issue. It is a basic aspect of all tourneys I've ever seen that they set some parameters on how big the games are. The core WFB didn't say you must use XXX points. That was a decision by the TOs as to how big they wanted games to be. Using wounds/models/scrolls is no different. Clearly GW didn't intend a points system, so what is the issue.

Do you understand that when people complained about balance in WHFB it wasn't some kind of admittance that the game is imbalanced and so we should move on?
It was a criticism, it was people saying they dislike that and want it fixed. Balance is also not a yes/no proposition, it is possible for WHFB to be unbalanced, and for AoS to be even more unbalanced.

Game systems like this are not balanced or unbalanced. They are merely a set of rules, it is how you choose to play it that makes balanced games or not. The discussion I have been talking about is about balanced tournaments. There is no balance issue to fix. It is in fact easy to run a balanced tourney with what is there. It merely requires an understanding that points and balanced tourneys are not synonymous.

I understand that some people want points, primarily for a specific style of game play independent of tourneys. That is people wanting something that the game didn't set out to do, hence nothing to fix. If players want that style of game then they are best placed to make those points systems themselves as they are the ones wanting something that is not the intent of the game. No points system will be balanced for all groups of people who play even with different size of games never mind comp rules etc. No single points system will be balanced for a system with varied objective based scenarios as the main thrust of play style, where what is good or bad will depend on scenario objectives. The fast weak unit will be useless in some scenarios no matter how cheap, and the must take unit in other scenarios no matter how expensive.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Technically even saying 100 wounds/models/etc is still trying to 'fix' the rules, as they are not in the core rules, and clearly not how GW indented the game to be played.

Since GW has, in fact, used such a standard in their own rules, I'd say it probably is pretty close to how they intended for the game to be played.

Unless I have missed something you are talking about the school league rules, which to my knowledge were created by Warhammer World or the like, but even if they are by the design studio they are not core rules. If you use them you are changing the core rules of the game, ie, not using the game 'out of the box'. There is of course nothing wrong with that, changing rules should be encouraged when among friends for added enjoyment, but you can't argue that it is the way the game was meant to be played or that the game works fine out of the box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puree wrote:
I understand that some people want points, primarily for a specific style of game play independent of tourneys. That is people wanting something that the game didn't set out to do, hence nothing to fix. If players want that style of game then they are best placed to make those points systems themselves as they are the ones wanting something that is not the intent of the game.

We are way off topic here and I am tired so to that I will simply say this;

This thread is meant to be about how AoS is doing in your area, there is a better thread to talk about balance and tourney's, but given the results of this poll I'd suggest that players looking for a points based system do not feel that they are best severed by building one, they are simply leaving the game, and that those players who do want a points based game seem to be the majority.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Technically even saying 100 wounds/models/etc is still trying to 'fix' the rules, as they are not in the core rules, and clearly not how GW indented the game to be played.

Since GW has, in fact, used such a standard in their own rules, I'd say it probably is pretty close to how they intended for the game to be played.

...

So is model count, and key word count, but none of these are necessarily going to produce balanced forces.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

So is model count, and key word count, but none of these are necessarily going to produce balanced forces.

It depends on what you are balancing for. If you are balancing for a quick game, a fun game, or a friendly game, I'm sure it suffices. If you are balancing towards a game in which each side has roughly an equal chance of achieving victory with player skill being the only thing which tips the balance, then you might need something else on top of that.

While this is still just an assumption, Age of Sigmar does not seem to be designed evenly slightly towards the latter. You can paint a pumpkin green, but it still won't taste like watermelon. And that's okay, because some people like pumpkin better.