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.

Oh sure, I don't like the way he presented it. But the essential idea; that campaign and narrative games are great, is something I agree with (well, maybe he didn't say that lol).

By not following through, I meant they no longer show us how to play their games. They have given us a big sandbox (which I love, but others don't) but they no longer publish content on how to play these games (I.e. The old white dwarf content, battle reports and articles etc).

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

And, as unfortunately somewhat expected, you're completely ignoring how he pretty much paints competitive players as the cancer of wargaming and writes the article in a way that is looks more like an act of division instead of inclusion.

I thought the dislike of WAAC players was a pretty common sentiment, not just in wargaming but in gaming in general?

Jervis doesn't focus on WAAC players. He adresses "tournament players" as a whole.

Go read the article.

It's probably best, if you wish to actually have a discussion, to not insult or belittle the person you're conversing with.

Dial it down.

 Bottle wrote:
Oh sure, I don't like the way he presented it. But the essential idea; that campaign and narrative games are great, is something I agree with (well, maybe he didn't say that lol).

By not following through, I meant they no longer show us how to play their games. They have given us a big sandbox (which I love, but others don't) but they no longer publish content on how to play these games (I.e. The old white dwarf content, battle reports and articles etc).

What I miss the most is the variety of painting and modelling articles. That was stock full of good ideas.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

And, as unfortunately somewhat expected, you're completely ignoring how he pretty much paints competitive players as the cancer of wargaming and writes the article in a way that is looks more like an act of division instead of inclusion.

I thought the dislike of WAAC players was a pretty common sentiment, not just in wargaming but in gaming in general?

Competitive =/= waac. Tournaments are fine. Don't generalise or make Incorrect generalisations here.

Waac players will exist everywhere, even in the 'just eyeball it' sandbox that is aos.

 Bottle wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


I really can only remember Jervis in that beautiful article he wrote all those years before this gak fest...

I like that article (don't agree 100%, but still find it an interesting read). It shows why GW went for something like AoS.

I think it shows a massive disconnect between how the GW studio does things and how the majority of their fanbase do things.

Deadnight wrote:

Competitive =/= waac. Tournaments are fine. Don't generalise or make Incorrect generalisations here.

The Jervis article was written over 15 years ago, and WAAC was only an acronym only after 2008 or so (near as I can tell). In the editorial, almost all the things he complains about, including "... because all they were interested in was winning games", describes WAAC players, not just any random player who happened to wander into a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

I think it shows a massive disconnect between how the GW studio does things and how the majority of their fanbase do things.

So GW isn't allowed to create anything that doesn't serve the majority of their existing fanbase?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

I think it shows a massive disconnect between how the GW studio does things and how the majority of their fanbase do things.

So GW isn't allowed to create anything that doesn't serve the majority of their existing fanbase?

No, GW is stupid for trying to force a style of play on their customers (the people that pay their salaries) that said people don't seem to want.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Competitive =/= waac. Tournaments are fine. Don't generalise or make Incorrect generalisations here.

The Jervis article was written over 15 years ago, and WAAC was only an acronym only after 2008 or so (near as I can tell). In the editorial, almost all the things he complains about, including "... because all they were interested in was winning games", describes WAAC players, not just any random player who happened to wander into a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

I think it shows a massive disconnect between how the GW studio does things and how the majority of their fanbase do things.

So GW isn't allowed to create anything that doesn't serve the majority of their existing fanbase?

Sure they are, and that's how we got exactly where we are at the moment. A broken, squabbling customer base. Isn't it swell?

Also, his worries extend far beyond WAAC players - you're just choosing not to acknowledge it. And the year of the article is irrelevant as it mirrors exactly how GW is pushing AoS as. Decades, centuries old plays and books are just as incisive and relevant now as they were then, if not more.

 jonolikespie wrote:
No, GW is stupid for trying to force a style of play on their customers (the people that pay their salaries) that said people don't seem to want.

What did GW force anybody to do? Their decision to stop WHFB was a financial one (as in, WHFB players weren't doing their part to pay their salaries), and AoS is a separate game, with separate goals, that nobody is being forced to play.

 jonolikespie wrote:
No, GW is stupid for trying to force a style of play on their customers (the people that pay their salaries) that said people don't seem to want.

Btw there is "some" ground to consider that when GW releases something with the thought to appeal to the public at large it is profitable. My example would be 5th edition of 40k - Cavatore stated that his team went around gaming clubs, saw how most people played, what they liked and what they didn't and incorporated it into 5th. It is regarded as the most successful edition since 4th(included). Yes, I know it has been given many times as an example, but it is the only edition AFAIK for which that was publicly stated. Ergo if AoS proves to be profitable there may be some ground to consider that this was what the audience (or atleast part of it) wanted . It may be an "acquired" desire though...

 CoreCommander wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
No, GW is stupid for trying to force a style of play on their customers (the people that pay their salaries) that said people don't seem to want.

Btw there is "some" ground to consider that when GW releases something with the thought to appeal to the public at large it is profitable. My example would be 5th edition of 40k - Cavatore stated that his team went around gaming clubs, saw how most people played, what they liked and what they didn't and incorporated it into 5th. It is regarded as the most successful edition since 4th(included). Yes, I know it has been given many times as an example, but it is the only edition AFAIK for which that was publicly stated. Ergo if AoS proves to be profitable there may be some ground to consider that this was what the audience (or atleast part of it) wanted . It may be an "acquired" desire though...

If they think AoS wouldn't crack the Fantasy base right in two they need to show me where they did their...

Wait, nevermind.

"otiose"

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
No, GW is stupid for trying to force a style of play on their customers (the people that pay their salaries) that said people don't seem to want.

What did GW force anybody to do? Their decision to stop WHFB was a financial one (as in, WHFB players weren't doing their part to pay their salaries), and AoS is a separate game, with separate goals, that nobody is being forced to play.

So their response to falling sales was to do something that would appeal to even less of the fans they have left?

No, it was to try and gain new ones. We'll see in a few years whether they succeeded or not.

I think GW will have gained some new customers and lost some old ones.

This probably won't be good enough to save them.

With the AoS-ification of the Lizardmen range, I think GW have tipped their hand a little
The background for them has changed, but the models didn't.
This would suggest Orcs, Undead, the remnants of the Skaven and potentially Beastmen will likely get the same treatment - repacks and a Battletome explaining what they've been up to - and this can be achieved quite rapidly.
Chaos is possibly a little more complicated as from the Bloodbound releases I think that Undivided mortals will be the exception, rather than the norm - so we could be looking at power-specific marauder/warrior/chosen level minis, plus Battletome casting them as a separate faction.
The remnants - Elves, Dwarfs and Empire - no idea.
These factions don't exist within AoS, so my guess is a Stormcast-style release window of 8 weeks or so for the 'new' versions, with the 'old' range going direct-only.
I know it's been one of the lesser criticisms, but padding out the universe as rapidly as possible - and having a consistent 'look' to their retail space seems to fit GW's MO.

 jonolikespie wrote:
So their response to falling sales was to do something that would appeal to even less of the fans they have left?

You guys seem to get upset when GW treats gaming like a business, but you are quick to use "the business" as an excuse as to why your needs, and especially your needs, must be catered to at all times. Because fans. And of course, most fans agree with you because nobody who considered themselves a fan could have a different opinion.

Look, Age of Sigmar is a product to be sold to consumers, but it is also a creative endeavor on behalf of the game creators. Some decisions they made were for business reasons and some were made for creative reasons. And sometimes, those decisions don't benefit people like you or me because your wants are at odds with the needs and desires of the creative team. Or perhaps there's multiple people with different wants, and those wants are at odds, and you can't make a decision one way without angering the other people. So what do you do? You make the decision that you think is the best choice and hope you can create something worthy of that hard decision.

I'm a fan of Age of Sigmar, and if they built the game the way you obviously wanted them to, I would be left out in the cold. I didn't care for or want WHFB and still don't.

I guess what I'm saying is, stop being so selfish. There are lots of fans out there and your fandom is not any more or less "the one true way", and being a fan does not give you the right to demand that GW does things a certain way.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Holy gak! Really? I saw that alternative when I was 5 year old playing with army men

Well... congratulations. But not everyone has had the same path into wargaming, and it is entirely possible that someone can play minaitures games and never be exposed to anything other than points-based gaming.

Seriously, we can all surely agree that not everyone plays the same way?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Comparing open world video games to tabletop = fail. In so many ways it's not even funny. Moving on

That is a shame, as I think that point has a lot going for it.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
The point is "This game is being treated differently because it was released by GW".

I think you are right.

I think you could take any version of Warhammer, put it into the hands of another company and it could easily be overlooked.

The rules are not the attraction to GW games. It is the background behind them.

I would be quite happy to say that if the game was instead Age of Gnomes, I might not go anywhere near it. But it is not - it is Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, and it lets me push around my Chaos and Stormcast models round the table with a storyline I am quite enjoying. So, I agree with you but, for me, that is not the point.

 insaniak wrote:

If you are imposing limitations on army selection that aren't present in the rules, then you are altering the rules.

You really aren't. If I decide the limit myself to one Wraithknight per 2,000 points, I am not altering the rules, I am just being a reasonable human being. If I decide to make Heavy D-Cannon S10 instead of SD, then I am changing the rules.

What Bottle is doing is just deciding what army to take using whatever principles seem appealing at the time.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
nothing stopped players from playing WHFB/whatever game uses points/a universal balancing measurement exactly like AoS is being played and ignoring points/balancing measures. Nothing. You can toss the rules out and go full on lulz "look at my khornate skink army".

You are absolutely right. But, as I said in the OP (anyone remember that? ) how a game is presented will shape how most players approach it. You will get some who go beyond this, but it will not be usual.

If you put a points-based system at the heart of a game, that is how most players will be encouraged to play. Again, as I said in the OP, this is a very real thing and, to a designer, it can be a concern.

 insaniak wrote:

You are only playing AoS like this because GW is telling you to play it like this.

Encouraging.

Now, here is the thing about points-based vs. freeform.

Neither is better. Both have their place.

That does not mean that everyone will enjoy both (though I would encourage them to try). That does not mean everyone will 'get' both and yes, there are players out there who cannot see the attraction to a points-based system, as strange as that may seem.

I have a thing for AoS at the moment. I still play 8e (go High Elves!). I am glad both exist.

 Mymearan wrote:

That's exactly my point though... you COULD do the same in WHFB or any game ever... but almost no one did. .

This guy gets it

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Answer me this: how many people did you see campaigning in the forums that points/balancing systems are bad before AoS hit?

This is not a good argument, as it leads to stagnation - fundamentally no new games, no new experiences on the tabletop. It is a Plus Point that a company (in any field) is willing to innovate (yes, I know...) and try something new. It does not automatically follow that everyone will think that a good thing.

Look, we are running the risk of going round in circles here. It is possible that those playing AoS may never successfully communicate why they are enjoying the game. But, if that is the case, what harm has it done you? Has AoS changed the way you play games at all?

Age of Sigmar is definitely a great litmus test at determining if a high profile company can go against what people consider "standard" and succeed.

As we have seen, going against the standard does severely crack the fan base in half and cause a lot of negative emotions.

Points have been a standard in tabletop gaming since the early to mid 90s (there were games in the 80s that used a form of points as well so you could probably go back there as well) so to go back to historical roots where game masters told you what forces to expect was unexpected and virtually unheard of today.

Its nice to see new things I'll say that. It does require a shift in mentality and I know I'm guilty of not being comfortable with that (i wrote azyr because I needed a balancing mechanism - so I'm a poster child of needing balancing structures)

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

And, as unfortunately somewhat expected, you're completely ignoring how he pretty much paints competitive players as the cancer of wargaming and writes the article in a way that is looks more like an act of division instead of inclusion.

I thought the dislike of WAAC players was a pretty common sentiment, not just in wargaming but in gaming in general?

And that's your major failing showing its face. You equate competitive with WAAC. Very biased and makes proper discussion with you very difficult.

Unfortunately I do believe that we will be running circles, and we never will stop doing so. It's been long enough.

However - and quite honestly - your possibility of a valid comparison between Open world video games and tabletop FFA games like AoS intrigues me. Would you care to elaborate?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RoperPG wrote:
With the AoS-ification of the Lizardmen range, I think GW have tipped their hand a little
The background for them has changed, but the models didn't.
This would suggest Orcs, Undead, the remnants of the Skaven and potentially Beastmen will likely get the same treatment - repacks and a Battletome explaining what they've been up to - and this can be achieved quite rapidly.
Chaos is possibly a little more complicated as from the Bloodbound releases I think that Undivided mortals will be the exception, rather than the norm - so we could be looking at power-specific marauder/warrior/chosen level minis, plus Battletome casting them as a separate faction.
The remnants - Elves, Dwarfs and Empire - no idea.
These factions don't exist within AoS, so my guess is a Stormcast-style release window of 8 weeks or so for the 'new' versions, with the 'old' range going direct-only.
I know it's been one of the lesser criticisms, but padding out the universe as rapidly as possible - and having a consistent 'look' to their retail space seems to fit GW's MO.

I honestly don't think anyone would consider any other treatment to the existing factions apart from what they are currently having. Skaven are pretty much already the same but in AoS. And I believe that even the elves, dwarves and humans will be getting this treatment as well. At the most they'll be getting some new "core units", but that's it. Perhaps a shiny monster/character or two. I don't see GW has having enough manpower to pull three full releases like the Stormcast/Khorne so soon. But I may be wrong

On another note, we're already settling into our regularly scheduled armybook/codex release cycle...

auticus wrote:

Points have been a standard in tabletop gaming since the early to mid 90s (there were games in the 80s that used a form of points as well so you could probably go back there as well) so to go back to historical roots where game masters told you what forces to expect was unexpected and virtually unheard of today.

Actually, now you've made me curious as to the history of point systems. I went and checked my books for Star Wars Miniature Battles, published way back in '93, and it has points. But the points are more variable because you had a greater control over what was in a unit and how it was equipped - it was basically the RPG. So this many figures at this point cost, equipped with this armor at this point cost, holding these weapons, etc. However, the scenarios in the book had all of this stuff laid out for you. It would dictate what units were on the map and their designs. But they'd also include a "homebrew version" where you could play the scenario with your own teams, 2000 points per side. So points were used as a sort of balance, but as an afterthought. The points were used more to control army creation and improve diversity.

Then I checked out Car Wars Classic (I also have Deluxe, but Classic is closer to what it looked like in the 80s, I think). It has a system for designing cars that uses two point costs: money and weight. So you could start with a heavy body, which would give you more weight but at a higher cost. So you'd have to balance a feature with how much it cost and whether it would fit on your vehicle. Without going through the whole rules, it looks like it was more RPGish, where you'd start with a base amount of money to build your first car, and through a campaign system, earn more money you could use to build more and better cars. The point system was used to make car design more complicated, but didn't seem to affect balance. The cost of the vehicle seemed to be the general purpose point value used to see how powerful a vehicle was at a glance. One of the scenarios gives one player $17,000 to build one car while the other players share $25,000 to buy/design at least 5 cycles - so it is used to balance scenarios, but not in an equal points = equal balance sort of way.

These two games were the late 80s, early 90s, and both of them use points to build your units more than a general purpose "balance value". In both cases you pick a starting point which sets up the points available for initial creation, with the ability to go beyond it for additional cost. So at least in these two cases, the points were used less for balance and more as a restrain on army creation. I think some RPGs at the time, like Champions, also used points as a creation restraint. The points were used to buy abilities and models, so it was more of a currency, and even then there were other limitations that created the balance rather than the points themselves.

 Mymearan wrote:
No, it was to try and gain new ones. We'll see in a few years whether they succeeded or not.

I can understand that, but I just don't know if it was worth the risk of severing the existing player base in half.

It could've been done so much better... but I digress.

 MWHistorian wrote:

And that's your major failing showing its face. You equate competitive with WAAC. Very biased and makes proper discussion with you very difficult.

No, I associate players referred to as "tournament players" with WAAC. I think tournaments encourage and reward WAAC playing, and I think that WAAC players are most at home in that environment. Just like psychopaths are four times more likely to be found in middle management, I think WAAC are four times more likely to be found in tournaments. And yeah, I think the derogatory term "tournament players" is referring to these people specifically.

I don't have a problem with people who like to play competitively. I have a problem with people who can only see a game as competitive and refuse to acknowledge, or simply can't, the many other qualities and play styles that exist.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
No, it was to try and gain new ones. We'll see in a few years whether they succeeded or not.

I can understand that, but I just don't know if it was worth the risk of severing the existing player base in half.

It could've been done so much better... but I digress.

Seeing as WHFB was dead, it was probably go big or go home. A small adjustment to the rules for 9th edition and some new models as usual wouldn't have made a big difference.

 Sqorgar wrote:

The Jervis article was written over 15 years ago, and WAAC was only an acronym only after 2008 or so (near as I can tell). In the editorial, almost all the things he complains about, including "... because all they were interested in was winning games", describes WAAC players, not just any random player who happened to wander into a tournament.

And he foolishly and incorrectly ascribes that to tournament play and bemoans that whole scene and it's players, whilst simultaneously 'not getting it'. Typical really - it's 'those people' who are having fun the wrong way that are ruining it all - how dare they have fun and enjoy their hobby in a different manner? And you then go on with that doozy of jervis', and ascribe tournament play and Waac as the same thing, which is just as ignorant and small minded.

 Sqorgar wrote:

No, I associate players referred to as "tournament players" with WAAC.

Then you are narrow minded, snide, ill informed, condascending, judgemental and incredibly rude. As well as being completely in the wrong. How about you get off your high horse and stop pretending to be so high and mighty?

 Sqorgar wrote:

I think tournaments encourage and reward WAAC playing, and I think that WAAC players are most at home in that environment.

No. Poorly designed and often 'open sandbox' games with lots of grey areas, room for manoeuvre and interpretation and ambiguities encourage Waac behaviour. If anything, aos has as much if not more scope for Waac play without serious restrictions, house ruling, and various accommodations and co operative behaviour. Take that away, and the game very quickly devolves into a cesspit.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Just like psychopaths are four times more likely to be found in middle management, I think WAAC are four times more likely to be found in tournaments.

I've seen plenty Waac players trolling casual gaming circuits across a wide variety of games in my time. Your assumption doesn't necessarily hold up. And thanks for the association between psychopaths and people you so readily and happily dismiss. You're something else, you know that?

 Sqorgar wrote:

And yeah, I think the derogatory term "tournament players" is referring to these people specifically.

Then that term is foolishly incorrectly applied. And you are just as foolish and just as incorrect for agreeing with it. Tournament player is not synonymous with Waac. A tournament player is just that - a player who plays in tournaments. And there are as many motivations for thst as there are players. Don't be so snide and small minded.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
No, it was to try and gain new ones. We'll see in a few years whether they succeeded or not.

I can understand that, but I just don't know if it was worth the risk of severing the existing player base in half.

It could've been done so much better... but I digress.

Seeing as WHFB was dead, it was probably go big or go home. A small adjustment to the rules for 9th edition and some new models as usual wouldn't have made a big difference.

Surely there were ways to 'go big' without bleeding current customers, though. As it is, Age of Sigmar now has to attract enough new players to make up for the loss of the old ones and reach whatever sales goal GW didn't think WHFB was meeting.

Almost all games end up being split in two communities of varying sizes: casual players and competitive players. Neither is "better" but they are different.

The casual community tends embrace randomness, "fun factor," aesthetics, story etc. The competitive community wants tightness of rules, mechanics and finds its fun factor in that.

The competitive community also tends to become a hive of negativity and off-putting to casuals. They tend to resist change.

I think GW was under the impression their game had catered to the competitive community for too long and that was a factor in its stagnation. AoS is a game made for the casual community.

People can certainly have degrees of both, but they tend to fall more so in one camp than the other. I've been in both camps in many different game systems. It's something you see everywhere, with the same stories and arguments playing out, just with different games and names involved.

As has been said, the bet with AoS is that the new market it's aimed at (made partially from the old market) will be bigger and more sustainable. I think the competitive community can still find joy in AoS with home-brew comp systems, but it will depend just how resistant to that idea and playstyle each person is. And there's nothing wrong with that, you like what you like.

coldgaming wrote:
Almost all games end up being split in two communities of varying sizes: casual players and competitive players. Neither is "better" but they are different.

The casual community tends embrace randomness, "fun factor," aesthetics, story etc. The competitive community wants tightness of rules, mechanics and finds its fun factor in that.

The competitive community also tends to become a hive of negativity and off-putting to casuals. They tend to resist change.

I think GW was under the impression their game had catered to the competitive community for too long and that was a factor in its stagnation. AoS is a game made for the casual community.

People can certainly have degrees of both, but they tend to fall more so in one camp than the other. I've been in both camps in many different game systems. It's something you see everywhere, with the same stories and arguments playing out, just with different games and names involved.

As has been said, the bet with AoS is that the new market it's aimed at (made partially from the old market) will be bigger and more sustainable. I think the competitive community can still find joy in AoS with home-brew comp systems, but it will depend just how resistant to that idea and playstyle each person is. And there's nothing wrong with that, you like what you like.

Ummm.... you do realize the most competitive events in the world usually have a huge following of casuals? Olympic games, Sports, board games, card games and video games etc. The vast majority of both casual players and competitive players want better rules. Nobody is put off frisby because competitive frisby is too hard core...

It's just a minority of casual players who can't think about the bigger picture who think having worse rules is better because it forces all but the dozens of them to quit and move on.

Deadnight wrote:

Then you are narrow minded, snide, ill informed, condascending, judgemental and incredibly rude. As well as being completely in the wrong. How about you get off your high horse and stop pretending to be so high and mighty?

WTF dude? Don't be a dick.

Look, if you feel insulted by what I said, then my apologies. I thought WAAC was one of those, "If you don't know a WAAC player, you are the WAAC player" sort of deals, where you could complain about them at length because the very people you were complaining about would nod in agreement, thinking you were talking about someone else. Given the vitriol and open contempt in your response, this is obviously not true. So my bad for misjudging the situation.

I will say this though, maybe Age of Sigmar isn't ever going to be your cup of tea...