Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The topic is what would you have done differently in launching AoS, so let's stick to that and not turn this into another AoS is Great!/AoS is Gak! thread.

Thank you.

Make an actual Age of Sigmar game. Sigmar Heldenhammer running around with some Unberogen smacking some Orcs around.

Basically a WHFB equivalent to Saga.

Also taking a good long look at the state of WHFB with a view to releasing a decent ruleset wouldn't hurt.

Parallel instead of replacement game. Pretty much the key to it.

Have AoS be an entry game for WHFB that allows for small Skirmish battles with the very same miniatures and hobby beginners. Once they wanted to step it up and play an actual tabletop with rules and stuff, they could use the WHFB rules.

There never was a need to fully eliminate an entire system and marketing-wise, it was quite possibly the dumbest movie in the history of GW to just delete one of their main system. Judging by sales in Western Germany so far I am glad to see GW falling straight on their face.

tl;dr: Should have made AoS the "beginner" level WHFB and then still have both.

OOOoooh, I know. I'd take the Destiny of Kings book Mantic put out for KoW, slap a 'sigmar' sticker over the KoW title, and release that alongside AoS.

It is a wonderful campaign guide that talks all about how to do linked, narrative games, as well as map based more competitive games, and an example of a narrative campaign that included a round of their dungeon crawl game and KoW rules for one of that games antagonists. Hell, it even had advice for how to get a group together and organize the campaign with other gamers.

That kind of thing sounds to me like a perfect book to pair with the kind of game AoS is supposed to be, Battleplans on the other hand seem a little.. lacking compared to that I think.

Pair a good campaign book with the initial release and you'd have a much better release.

They tried the skirmish game alongside the main game approach back in 6th edition. They even dedicated a few white dwarf issues to releasing scenarios for it.

The skirmish rules were in WHFB core rulebook.

It didn't do very well because people ignored it for the main game.

Thats why I do not think a parallel release would have done any good. It would have been a waste of energy.

People don't want the beginner game. They want to skip straight to what people are playing for real and in tournaments.

Now if there were skirmish TOURNAMENTS going on at the same level as the regular tournaments, this would change. That currently does not exist though.

a SAGA version of WHFB would have been IMO awesome.

AoS supposedly was introduced because since 8th edition, 2010, WHFB had lost a lot of popularity. This was thought to be due partly to the massive increase in army size, though I believe doubling the cost of books was also an important factor.

At any rate, perhaps the lack of impact of a skirmish game in 6th edition is not relevant to the situation of the past five years.

1. Points - perhaps keep a statement saying "you can chose to use points in your games, but we encourage you to ignore them if you prefer". Give people the choice. It doesn't have to be as fiddly as previous GW points systems either - something simple like Saga could have worked fine.

2. Keep the Old World, but change it. The End Times should have played out differently and left the Old World changed but intact. I have no real interest in the new background but I did like the background for the Old World and there wasn't a whole lot like it in the mass market fantasy scene.

3. Keep square bases. Don't see any reason round bases were needed and it's a pain in the arse. Then use bases as the point for measurement.

4. Keep the scale on new minis close to the old. The upscaling will prevent me from buying any AoS minis unless they are monsters.

You could keep the Sigmarines (just make them angelic warriors of Sigmar intervening due to Chaos over-running the world, Angels of Order.)

The idea of fast and loose skirmish system is actually attractive. The free rules are fine, and the core is also fine, free army lists is great.

RoperPG wrote:
WFB was not making GW enough of a return on the investment of resources. AoS is a product that GW obviously hope will correct that.

The reason why WFB wasn't making GW enough money on a return of investment was because they were not giving it's customers what they wanted. GW thinks we will buy what they put out and that is not the case. It looks like GW is doing it again with AoS. So how will AoS correct it when GW is doing the same thing as they did last time?

I would have:
1) forced round bases, make the base the measure point, I dont think that currently the solution worked, they let us keep square bases in a vain attempt to throw a bone to old warhammer fans but with no real intention of keeping our armies around. stick with 1 base type and make it work

2) points not by unit, but by model, and eliminate units altogether. you want it to be "bring what you want" then make it no kidding bring what you want, an army of 3 thunderers, 5 iron breakers, a thane, and a cannon would be ok if they all did what they wanted. a warscroll could give all the things a model could do and then let someone go nuts (more of a lotr type thing)
-------2) warscroll for model not units without points to keep the "no points" in if absolutely insistant on that part.

3) clarify combat better, make it clear, currently its a mess

4) alternating model/unit activation or do a lotr style system for turn sequence.

Thecustomlime, again, using 50 cent words to insult. Cognative dissonance... lol. I have two college degrees and two tech diplomas, four cars, a new home, etc, you should get the point.

All I said if you read my post is that everytime someone says something good about aos, someone slams them with sarcasm or insults about the game. No adult likes that kind of childish bullying or needs it. This is why the aos/fantasy forums have shrunk as most players don't waste their time trying to reason with the unreasonable. You just proved that point good sir.

Back on topic; I think points would have fixed the issues with the game. The models, play what you want (lack of foc), free digital rules, etc, are actually pretty cutting edge compared to other skirmish games. The only issue I see is balance that could be fixed with a point or wound system. This is why the gw tournaments have a wound cap and keyword limitation system. If it is used in tournaments, why not make it official for the game?

I think a misstep GW took was just introducing two factions from the start. Especially since those armies aren't particularly unique within the company's model range. If they had started with the Start Collecting boxes they had today for Seraphon, Nurgle etc. the game would've been received a bit better.

I would've also tried to distance the game from WHFB in terms of lore if they wanted AoS to be it's replacement. Keep Chaos and Sigmar but axe off everything else. It may alienate old players but... that was inevitable.

I think GW would have a lot less rage towards it and AoS if the transition was more rational and less abrupt.

More rational because after the EoT books spam there was several months of total silence, only to be broken by a jugular cut to wfb. I mean seriously? Who in their right mind lures people for EoT ( and looking back lots of Wfb fans were exited with the stream of news and got more into WFB mode again) and then after months of nothing they explode it all into bubbles. This is someone luring you with a pint of beer only to smash it in your head after you bought it. This is never going to end up well.

Less abrupt because there was no need for the fluff to be obliterated, it could have been evolving slowly. Rules its another thing I have no idea how they could have done it otherwise in therms of jumping from 50 men regiments 10front wide to skirmish armies of 50 models. Bonkers!

It was a hard thing to take on board and I think communication failed, GW still lives to much stuck into their own beliefs and ignored the idea that maybe they should respect more who actually pays the bills.

I also would have created small themed warbands box sets with mixed alliances very much like the current factions arrangements as a starting point rather than 1 starter box with sigmar and khorne.

Davor wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
WFB was not making GW enough of a return on the investment of resources. AoS is a product that GW obviously hope will correct that.

The reason why WFB wasn't making GW enough money on a return of investment was because they were not giving it's customers what they wanted. GW thinks we will buy what they put out and that is not the case. It looks like GW is doing it again with AoS. So how will AoS correct it when GW is doing the same thing as they did last time?

Because GW obviously didn't draw the same conclusions you did?

AoS isn't just 'a different game', it's an entirely different retail model.
I haven't said what they have done is the right thing, but it's for the reasons I stated that I don't believe dual-running AoS and WFB was ever an option - AoS was an overhaul of GW's fantasy system from studio to stockroom to shopfloor, so running both systems would have been utterly pointless and even more costly.

 455_PWR wrote:
Thecustomlime, again, using 50 cent words to insult. Cognative dissonance... lol. I have two college degrees and two tech diplomas, four cars, a new home, etc, you should get the point.

All I said if you read my post is that everytime someone says something good about aos, someone slams them with sarcasm or insults about the game. No adult likes that kind of childish bullying or needs it. This is why the aos/fantasy forums have shrunk as most players don't waste their time trying to reason with the unreasonable. You just proved that point good sir.

Back on topic; I think points would have fixed the issues with the game. The models, play what you want (lack of foc), free digital rules, etc, are actually pretty cutting edge compared to other skirmish games. The only issue I see is balance that could be fixed with a point or wound system. This is why the gw tournaments have a wound cap and keyword limitation system. If it is used in tournaments, why not make it official for the game?

I was with you all the way up to "cutting edge" compared to other skirmish games, it stacks very poorly against other skirmish games. the units have reasons to be up to 30-40+ models in size, most of the good skirmish games out there that one unit outnumbers. I think had they ditched the "unit" concept altogether they could have made something very unique,. as it is, they did not make anything unique but hodgepodged together what they already had in a clumsy way. a warband built in the mode of mordheim where these individual models would be more useful other than handfull of dice adders would have been very interesting

1. Not destroyed the old world. I dont see the point because when chaos trys to destroy a planet, that worlds population will no longer worship them, shed blood, contract disease, indulge in excess, etc. I thought the chaos gods would rather have things continue but in their own image and ways versus total obliteration.
2. I would not have brought back mannfred. He essentially is the one who destroyed the old world with his backstab, i dont see why Nagash brought him back in AoS.
3. Sigvald would not have been cheap-shotted and died.
Why? because:

 SonOfSigvald wrote:
1. Not destroyed the old world. I dont see the point because when chaos trys to destroy a planet, that worlds population will no longer worship them, shed blood, contract disease, indulge in excess, etc. I thought the chaos gods would rather have things continue but in their own image and ways versus total obliteration.
2. I would not have brought back mannfred. He essentially is the one who destroyed the old world with his backstab, i dont see why Nagash brought him back in AoS.
3. Sigvald would not have been cheap-shotted and died.
Why? because:

Love it! poor sigvald

RoperPG wrote:

Davor wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
WFB was not making GW enough of a return on the investment of resources. AoS is a product that GW obviously hope will correct that.

The reason why WFB wasn't making GW enough money on a return of investment was because they were not giving it's customers what they wanted. GW thinks we will buy what they put out and that is not the case. It looks like GW is doing it again with AoS. So how will AoS correct it when GW is doing the same thing as they did last time?

Because GW obviously didn't draw the same conclusions you did?

AoS isn't just 'a different game', it's an entirely different retail model.
I haven't said what they have done is the right thing, but it's for the reasons I stated that I don't believe dual-running AoS and WFB was ever an option - AoS was an overhaul of GW's fantasy system from studio to stockroom to shopfloor, so running both systems would have been utterly pointless and even more costly.

Fair enough.

 NAVARRO wrote:
I think GW would have a lot less rage towards it and AoS if the transition was more rational and less abrupt.

More rational because after the EoT books spam there was several months of total silence, only to be broken by a jugular cut to wfb. I mean seriously? Who in their right mind lures people for EoT ( and looking back lots of Wfb fans were exited with the stream of news and got more into WFB mode again) and then after months of nothing they explode it all into bubbles. This is someone luring you with a pint of beer only to smash it in your head after you bought it. This is never going to end up well.

Less abrupt because there was no need for the fluff to be obliterated, it could have been evolving slowly. Rules its another thing I have no idea how they could have done it otherwise in therms of jumping from 50 men regiments 10front wide to skirmish armies of 50 models. Bonkers!

It was a hard thing to take on board and I think communication failed, GW still lives to much stuck into their own beliefs and ignored the idea that maybe they should respect more who actually pays the bills.

I also would have created small themed warbands box sets with mixed alliances very much like the current factions arrangements as a starting point rather than 1 starter box with sigmar and khorne.

That really was the BS of all BS moves. I feel for all the new players that were drawn into the game and then bought fantasy material in the months leading up to the switcheroo. It's like GW was using their lack of transparancy to fleece customers into buying product they didn't want to take a loss on, and those players got one hell of a screwjob. Not everyone looks on the internet for random rumors.

I only can wonder on how many players GW lost after they bought rules material for WHFB last spring that ended up being for naught.


Of all things that I could have done differently from GW about AoS, it would have been being more clear with the fans what was going to happen, bottom line be damned.

I don'tagree that AoS is a completely different retail model to 40K, WHFB or LoTR.

You buy a starter kit that includes two small armies and the rules. You've then got the option to buy a more expensive rulebook, expansion books, and more kits of figures to expand your army or armies. Alternatively, you can buy the rules and figures separately if you don't want the starter set.

All this seems to be the same as the other games.

The difference is that you can download the core AoS rules and army lists free, as a taster. This is a good idea, which many games have used, though not previous GW games.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don'tagree that AoS is a completely different retail model to 40K, WHFB or LoTR.

Probably best if I explain my thoughts on GW's decision making properly.
NB. This is *not* an assessment of whether they made the right decisions or not.
Start from 3 basic assumptions;
1) Need to improve income relative to cost of development
2) Customers are not buying enough minis.
3) GW would rather sell £x of minis than £x of books, presumably due to % profit per £.

Provide basic game rules for free - this removes the necessity of buying a BRB or starter set every few years, reducing the minimum spend to get going or stay involved.

1 box, 1 unit. In 40k, one box provided everything you needed to field at least a minimum sized unit that was usable. In WFB, you normally required at least a couple of boxes to field a unit that was game-worthy. AoS has moved to that model, again supporting the idea of lower minimum spend in order to combat prohibitive cost for beginners.

Remove points / composition rules from standard game rules. A lot's been said about the fact you could always do that voluntarily, but overwhelmingly people tend to play as RAW, so by including points/comp in the rules people will tend to default to those. No more criticism of unit Y being overpowered, unit Z being underpowered, or army A having no counter to unit B, or the requirement to have at least 2 of a unit before you could buy that hero you wanted.

Points & comp also necessitate the updating of the relevant army books, and ongoing FAQ work. Without, you can release unit A for army B whenever you want. No more scheduling big releases for armies that (post chapterhouse) necessitate a full suite of mini releases to coincide with the army book.

By providing mini rules in the box or free downloads, combined with zero comp/points, you never get power creep or underperforming units when the core rules change (specific example for me was the window between Wood Elves at the end of 5th and the changes to skirmishing for 6th - they were *brutal* in that window.) while people wait for the AB/BRB update.

People like the idea of space marines, and space marines sell. Well, here come the Stormcast.

Destruction of the Old World? Well, only reasoning I can put there is that due to the finite nature of the Old World, adding in Stormcast or Fyreslayers (for example) would have required retconning published histories and therefore imply more book purchasing. Switching to the journalistic approach to fluff of AoS as opposed to the quasi-historical approach of WFB allows the studio free reign to do whatever, whenever.

I'm not saying any of these could not have been fixed by changing the WFB rules and still keeping it ostensibly the same, but my opinion is that any change to facilitate the intent would have resulted in either a halfway-house financial measure, or big enough changes to the game that people would still have been unhappy.

TL: DR - GW had painted themselves into a corner with WFB, both financially and intellectually. They either had to scrabble to pull it back and risk some or all of the issues perpetuating, or clean slate and hope for the best. They obviously went for the latter.

"Age of Sigmar is the exciting first step in completely re-imagining the Warhammer game and experience! Rather than simply dictate what this new experience will be from on high, the designers here at GW will be working with the community to craft the very best game possible. Consider the game presented here to be a 'first draft'. Give these rules a go, and talk them over with your friends. What worked? What didn't? Included in this box set is a play test survey form that you can fill out and mail back to us with feedback. The same form, along with all of the current playtest rules, can also be found on our website online. Our studio designers will be looking over the feedback from these surveys to see what players like about the new game, and what still needs some work. Expect the next big revision to the Age of Sigmar rules on X/X/20XX - and if you've picked up this box after that point, then be sure to check our website for the most current playtest rules and feedback form!"


There. That's it. That's all you need to 'fix' age of sigmar. All the detractors then have a direction to dump their anger, even if no human being actually reads those surveys. Defenders have a go-to excuse that shuts down most griping "it's a playtest, if you don't like something send them feedback so they can fix it." Nobody needs to get too upset in the first place, since again, it's just a playtest.

Plus it would have given GW the excuse to walk back any change that proves to be overwhelmingly rejected by the community (no points no points no points), while still pretending it was part of their plan all along.

Public "play testing" keeps communities engaged even when going through changes they don't approve of otherwise. It gets people invested, makes them feel like part of the process. In this social media age, people expect to have at least the illusion of participation in the products and services they buy. GW's insistance on a uni-directional relationship between producers and consumers where the producers make what they want and consumers just buy it and use the product exclusively as directed is hopelessly backwards.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Parallel instead of replacement game. Pretty much the key to it.

Have AoS be an entry game for WHFB that allows for small Skirmish battles with the very same miniatures and hobby beginners. Once they wanted to step it up and play an actual tabletop with rules and stuff, they could use the WHFB rules.

There never was a need to fully eliminate an entire system and marketing-wise, it was quite possibly the dumbest movie in the history of GW to just delete one of their main system. Judging by sales in Western Germany so far I am glad to see GW falling straight on their face.

tl;dr: Should have made AoS the "beginner" level WHFB and then still have both.

This. (bold added for emphasis)

GW could have easily reshaped the setting's geopolitical situation without having to axe it. They could have settled for a path that could only gain them customers instead of starting from a complete and utter rupture with a significant portion of the FB playerbase, and introduce a decent, balanced version of FB to go with AoS.

But I guess that was too much to ask of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


On the power creep part, I think one needs to take into context the fact that there is already a Power Creep in place. I mean, why take 5 Chaos Knights when you can take 5 Varanguard since they are clearly more powerful?

I dunno about a lot of Age of Sigmar and how to improve it, but if there's one thing I'd change, it's how much distance the new setting has created.

What I mean by distance is how easy it is to get into the setting as a player and fan, and how easy it is to both understand and care for the setting. They did completely up with what the previous setting had done in that area, with a relatable setting, heroes and cultures you can sort of understand, and introduced a setting with no physical rules, created entirely by magic and make-believe and inhabinated by people who don't have a culture, a way of living and something to fight for. We don't know what all this fighting will accomplish, and we don't get to understand the drive to keep on fighting for a world that doesn't do anything good for anyone anyway.

The Stormcast are another very powerful good guy faction, which automatically turns me off, since that removes all sense of struggle from the faction. Combine this with the fact that they're post-mortals, and they have lost me completely; they have no relevance, other than to fight. On the other side there's the Khorne guys, who, previously, were vikings with homes and families who took out to pillage to feed their families and appease their gods, but now are just kinda... There. Fyreslayers are a flanderized version of the Dwarves we know, who have no Underway or Karaks to fight for, and no survival to think off, and the Lizardmen aren't threathened, and can suddenly do their Order things without any trouble. Meanwhile, all the peasants are completely unnoticed and no one mentions them, like they don't matter - And they don't, really. In WFB, a butchered city or countryside was an issue. But now, when everyone lives on warpdust and wishes and lives mean nothing in the grand scheme of things, who cares?

Add that to the fact that the good guys are somehow winning, and now are better morally than all other factions, and it's just one big, '300'-esque slop with no sense to anything and no investment. The heroes are unkillable and have no faces, no struggles, no personality, the bad guys are in it for no reason other than to be bad guys, and serve as meat for the hero-grinder.

Tat's what they lost from WFB, and what makes it all so sad, to me. I hope Total War will deliver the Old World in a somewhat recognizable state to compensate...

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

On the power creep part, I think one needs to take into context the fact that there is already a Power Creep in place. I mean, why take 5 Chaos Knights when you can take 5 Varanguard since they are clearly more powerful?

No, that's not power creep; they're simply a better unit. 1 to 1, yes, Varanguard objectively better.
Power creep is (for example) when unit X is pretty much twice as effective as unit Y, but for some reason only costs another 50% in whatever comp system is being used. It becomes a must-have. it sells. Meanwhile, unit Y is pretty much only purchased if people *have* to take them or are building fluff lists or just really like the models *because* unit X is better.

Without points, it's down to discussion with opponent. (Or not!)
GW aren't stating what Varanguard are equivalent to, so there by definition can't be power creep because there isn't a quantifiable concept of 'power' within AoS.
Perceived inefficiency in-game is (relatively) disposed of. So unit Y sells.

Without points to balance things out wouldn't Varanguard be an effective replacement for Chaos Knights in people's armies? I mean, why would you take Chaos Knights instead if they are inferior?

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I dunno about a lot of Age of Sigmar and how to improve it, but if there's one thing I'd change, it's how much distance the new setting has created.

What I mean by distance is how easy it is to get into the setting as a player and fan, and how easy it is to both understand and care for the setting. They did completely up with what the previous setting had done in that area, with a relatable setting, heroes and cultures you can sort of understand, and introduced a setting with no physical rules, created entirely by magic and make-believe and inhabinated by people who don't have a culture, a way of living and something to fight for. We don't know what all this fighting will accomplish, and we don't get to understand the drive to keep on fighting for a world that doesn't do anything good for anyone anyway.

The Stormcast are another very powerful good guy faction, which automatically turns me off, since that removes all sense of struggle from the faction. Combine this with the fact that they're post-mortals, and they have lost me completely; they have no relevance, other than to fight. On the other side there's the Khorne guys, who, previously, were vikings with homes and families who took out to pillage to feed their families and appease their gods, but now are just kinda... There. Fyreslayers are a flanderized version of the Dwarves we know, who have no Underway or Karaks to fight for, and no survival to think off, and the Lizardmen aren't threathened, and can suddenly do their Order things without any trouble. Meanwhile, all the peasants are completely unnoticed and no one mentions them, like they don't matter - And they don't, really. In WFB, a butchered city or countryside was an issue. But now, when everyone lives on warpdust and wishes and lives mean nothing in the grand scheme of things, who cares?

Add that to the fact that the good guys are somehow winning, and now are better morally than all other factions, and it's just one big, '300'-esque slop with no sense to anything and no investment. The heroes are unkillable and have no faces, no struggles, no personality, the bad guys are in it for no reason other than to be bad guys, and serve as meat for the hero-grinder.

Tat's what they lost from WFB, and what makes it all so sad, to me. I hope Total War will deliver the Old World in a somewhat recognizable state to compensate...

Yeah, that sums it up very nicely for me. And it's depressing to see several different people in this thread write better game settings with probably 15 minutes thought at best. It all just feels like what you get when the beancounters and IP lawyers have creative control.

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

On the power creep part, I think one needs to take into context the fact that there is already a Power Creep in place. I mean, why take 5 Chaos Knights when you can take 5 Varanguard since they are clearly more powerful?

No, that's not power creep; they're simply a better unit. 1 to 1, yes, Varanguard objectively better.
Power creep is (for example) when unit X is pretty much twice as effective as unit Y, but for some reason only costs another 50% in whatever comp system is being used. It becomes a must-have. it sells. Meanwhile, unit Y is pretty much only purchased if people *have* to take them or are building fluff lists or just really like the models *because* unit X is better.

Without points, it's down to discussion with opponent. (Or not!)
GW aren't stating what Varanguard are equivalent to, so there by definition can't be power creep because there isn't a quantifiable concept of 'power' within AoS.
Perceived inefficiency in-game is (relatively) disposed of. So unit Y sells.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerCreep "A term used in any kind of multi-player game (including Video Games, Collectible Card Game, and Tabletop Games) to describe the process in which newly-added-content can be played along with the old-content, but with the new content being far more powerful/useful in every sense."

"No, that's not power creep; they're simply a better unit. 1 to 1, yes, Varanguard objectively better."

I'll just leave that there. Just because one's not using points doesn't mean there's no power creep. It's your choice to use the new unit or not, but you objectively cannot deny it. Varanguard are significantly stronger than Chaos Knights for the exact same "price": being one model. You can't use the "but it'll balance out because there's no points!!1!" excuse for everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Without points to balance things out wouldn't Varanguard be an effective replacement for Chaos Knights in people's armies? I mean, why would you take Chaos Knights instead if they are inferior?

My point exactly.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Spoiler:

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

On the power creep part, I think one needs to take into context the fact that there is already a Power Creep in place. I mean, why take 5 Chaos Knights when you can take 5 Varanguard since they are clearly more powerful?

No, that's not power creep; they're simply a better unit. 1 to 1, yes, Varanguard objectively better.
Power creep is (for example) when unit X is pretty much twice as effective as unit Y, but for some reason only costs another 50% in whatever comp system is being used. It becomes a must-have. it sells. Meanwhile, unit Y is pretty much only purchased if people *have* to take them or are building fluff lists or just really like the models *because* unit X is better.

Without points, it's down to discussion with opponent. (Or not!)
GW aren't stating what Varanguard are equivalent to, so there by definition can't be power creep because there isn't a quantifiable concept of 'power' within AoS.
Perceived inefficiency in-game is (relatively) disposed of. So unit Y sells.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerCreep "A term used in any kind of multi-player game (including Video Games, Collectible Card Game, and Tabletop Games) to describe the process in which newly-added-content can be played along with the old-content, but with the new content being far more powerful/useful in every sense."

"No, that's not power creep; they're simply a better unit. 1 to 1, yes, Varanguard objectively better."

I'll just leave that there. Just because one's not using points doesn't mean there's no power creep. It's your choice to use the new unit or not, but you objectively cannot deny it. Varanguard are significantly stronger than Chaos Knights for the exact same "price": being one model. You can't use the "but it'll balance out because there's no points!!1!" excuse for everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Without points to balance things out wouldn't Varanguard be an effective replacement for Chaos Knights in people's armies? I mean, why would you take Chaos Knights instead if they are inferior?

My point exactly.

But then by that logic, Stormvermin, Greatswords & Hammerers are power creep, for example. Because they're elite units, and you have 'standard' units available.
For the vast majority of people who played WFB - or any game, for that matter - 'power' was/is a function of in-game usefulness vs. points cost. The various list discussion forums are absolute proof of this; how much bang can I get for my buck?
Even fluffy list writers included caveats like "I know they're not worth the points, but I like the models" or similar.

I have not stated anywhere that you couldn't/shouldn't take unit X v unit Y. I'm also not trying to cop out. But without points, a Varanguard is simply a Varanguard. He's a big boy who will tear chunks off anything and requires a lot of effort to put down. Whether you and your opponent factor that into any decisions on what should/shouldn't be on the table is down to you.
Because GW haven't codified any value to how powerful a Varanguard is in comparison to a Chaos Knight, or any other unit.
*That* is my point.

Yeah, GW kinda took the nuclear option with regard to Power Creep. Now they only "power creep" is what you can afford and what you can browbeat your opponent into letting you take.

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Spoiler:

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

On the power creep part, I think one needs to take into context the fact that there is already a Power Creep in place. I mean, why take 5 Chaos Knights when you can take 5 Varanguard since they are clearly more powerful?

No, that's not power creep; they're simply a better unit. 1 to 1, yes, Varanguard objectively better.
Power creep is (for example) when unit X is pretty much twice as effective as unit Y, but for some reason only costs another 50% in whatever comp system is being used. It becomes a must-have. it sells. Meanwhile, unit Y is pretty much only purchased if people *have* to take them or are building fluff lists or just really like the models *because* unit X is better.

Without points, it's down to discussion with opponent. (Or not!)
GW aren't stating what Varanguard are equivalent to, so there by definition can't be power creep because there isn't a quantifiable concept of 'power' within AoS.
Perceived inefficiency in-game is (relatively) disposed of. So unit Y sells.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerCreep "A term used in any kind of multi-player game (including Video Games, Collectible Card Game, and Tabletop Games) to describe the process in which newly-added-content can be played along with the old-content, but with the new content being far more powerful/useful in every sense."

"No, that's not power creep; they're simply a better unit. 1 to 1, yes, Varanguard objectively better."

I'll just leave that there. Just because one's not using points doesn't mean there's no power creep. It's your choice to use the new unit or not, but you objectively cannot deny it. Varanguard are significantly stronger than Chaos Knights for the exact same "price": being one model. You can't use the "but it'll balance out because there's no points!!1!" excuse for everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Without points to balance things out wouldn't Varanguard be an effective replacement for Chaos Knights in people's armies? I mean, why would you take Chaos Knights instead if they are inferior?

My point exactly.

But then by that logic, Stormvermin, Greatswords & Hammerers are power creep, for example. Because they're elite units, and you have 'standard' units available.
For the vast majority of people who played WFB - or any game, for that matter - 'power' was/is a function of in-game usefulness vs. points cost. The various list discussion forums are absolute proof of this; how much bang can I get for my buck?
Even fluffy list writers included caveats like "I know they're not worth the points, but I like the models" or similar.

I have not stated anywhere that you couldn't/shouldn't take unit X v unit Y. I'm also not trying to cop out. But without points, a Varanguard is simply a Varanguard. He's a big boy who will tear chunks off anything and requires a lot of effort to put down. Whether you and your opponent factor that into any decisions on what should/shouldn't be on the table is down to you.
Because GW haven't codified any value to how powerful a Varanguard is in comparison to a Chaos Knight, or any other unit.
*That* is my point.

But that's the thing - GW have indeed codified their value - each model is worth exactly *one* model. Period. End of. That's it. Without any comp, army restriction or whatever balancing tool you have no other way to compare them except by doing it on a 1 to 1 basis, and it's impossible not to see the power creep. It's. Right. There! Look at the AoS events that Matt goes to. What are the restrictions? Model numbers. Also, remember the reviled dwarf army he fought against a couple of months ago in an official Warhammer World AoS event?

As for the Stormvermin, Greatswords and Hammerers bit, I was tempted to mention them but decided not to because they are an issue related to the innate lack of balance in the base AoS release itself - it's not a power creep because neither of those three are part of content that was released after AoS was pushed out - it's just gakky balancing.