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.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
PL or Points is subjective... not objective.

Yes it is.

One accounts for differences in relative power and utility, and the other does not. One is objectively superior and providing better comparisons and balance.

 LunarSol wrote:
Sorry, that's not what I'm trying to say.

Upgrades certainly have never been useless, but they've been something pretty sparsely taken compared to the number of options available. Particularly notable are the stuff that only one model in the unit could take because in that capacity it doesn't really add to the unit's overall role. For every upgrade slot available in an army where you could take something, there's probably 3-4 where you left it empty to save points.

I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.

I'm not convinced that this was actually a systemic issue like you and others take for granted. Taking a single special weapon and a single heavy weapon in a squad of Tacticals was useful and there was a time when las/plas was the meta. Taking a vox was a godsend some editions, worthless in others. I remember Tyranid Warriors and Carnifexes having a whole suite of upgrades, and while not all equally useful, none of them were so worthless as to always be ignored.

But supposing that this was a problem and most upgrades weren't used, why not start with reviewing all the options and cutting prices in inverse proportion to how frequently they were chosen? If you've got an upgrade that's commonly used, then clearly it's worth whatever it costs. If it's rarely used, cutting its cost in half might make it see play. The worst you could do with this approach is go too far and make an upgrade so cheap it's a no-brainer... which would still be better than now, where all the upgrades are no-brainers and you get zero compensation for not taking them.

If the current model was a reaction to a perceived issue with the cost of upgrades, they jumped straight to the most extreme solution possible. And over time, as the meta is solved, I think you're going to find that the game becomes less colorful and less interesting when there's a cookie-cutter optimal loadout for each unit that at most differs in which special weapon is taken.

 catbarf wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Sorry, that's not what I'm trying to say.

Upgrades certainly have never been useless, but they've been something pretty sparsely taken compared to the number of options available. Particularly notable are the stuff that only one model in the unit could take because in that capacity it doesn't really add to the unit's overall role. For every upgrade slot available in an army where you could take something, there's probably 3-4 where you left it empty to save points.

I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.

I'm not convinced that this was actually a systemic issue like you and others take for granted. Taking a single special weapon and a single heavy weapon in a squad of Tacticals was useful and there was a time when las/plas was the meta. Taking a vox was a godsend some editions, worthless in others. I remember Tyranid Warriors and Carnifexes having a whole suite of upgrades, and while not all equally useful, none of them were so worthless as to always be ignored.

Eh. There have always been some upgrades that were never-takes, even if only because they took up the same "slot" as another option. 8th(?) edition Shadow Specter exarchs come to mind. For some reason, you had to pay points to upgrade a specter to an exarch even though that wasn't the case for any other exarch in that edition. Doing so gave you a squad leader with an extra wound and some a few gun options. The problem is that all of the exarch-only guns were actually worse than the default gun, or at least were "better" in a very niche role that didn't fit the rest of the squad. So by paying points for an exarch, you were functionally making the unit as a whole less good for their points.

Or a simpler example: it was pretty rare to see anyone fielding kabalite warrior sybarites with melee weapons in 8th/9th because the loss of furious charge, the initiative stat, comparative WS, and bonus attacks on the charge meant that you couldn't really pull off the cheeky warrior charges you could in 5th-7th. And most editions I've played, there's been at least one eldar vehicle upgrade that basically never gets taken because there are always at least two options you'd rather take before it. And if you took *all the upgrades*, you end up putting too many points into one basket.

I do prefer points to power level, but one of the small upsides of power level is that you can do things like put power weapons on your devastator sergeants or swooping hawk exarchs without feeling like you're hurting your list overall.

But supposing that this was a problem and most upgrades weren't used, why not start with reviewing all the options and cutting prices in inverse proportion to how frequently they were chosen? If you've got an upgrade that's commonly used, then clearly it's worth whatever it costs. If it's rarely used, cutting its cost in half might make it see play. The worst you could do with this approach is go too far and make an upgrade so cheap it's a no-brainer... which would still be better than now, where all the upgrades are no-brainers and you get zero compensation for not taking them.

If the current model was a reaction to a perceived issue with the cost of upgrades, they jumped straight to the most extreme solution possible. And over time, as the meta is solved, I think you're going to find that the game becomes less colorful and less interesting when there's a cookie-cutter optimal loadout for each unit that at most differs in which special weapon is taken.

Agreed.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Eh. There have always been some upgrades that were never-takes, even if only because they took up the same "slot" as another option. 8th(?) edition Shadow Specter exarchs come to mind. For some reason, you had to pay points to upgrade a specter to an exarch even though that wasn't the case for any other exarch in that edition. Doing so gave you a squad leader with an extra wound and some a few gun options. The problem is that all of the exarch-only guns were actually worse than the default gun, or at least were "better" in a very niche role that didn't fit the rest of the squad. So by paying points for an exarch, you were functionally making the unit as a whole less good for their points.

Or a simpler example: it was pretty rare to see anyone fielding kabalite warrior sybarites with melee weapons in 8th/9th because the loss of furious charge, the initiative stat, comparative WS, and bonus attacks on the charge meant that you couldn't really pull off the cheeky warrior charges you could in 5th-7th. And most editions I've played, there's been at least one eldar vehicle upgrade that basically never gets taken because there are always at least two options you'd rather take before it. And if you took *all the upgrades*, you end up putting too many points into one basket.

I do prefer points to power level, but one of the small upsides of power level is that you can do things like put power weapons on your devastator sergeants or swooping hawk exarchs without feeling like you're hurting your list overall.

Of course, there were some upgrades that were never taken because they conflicted with the role of the unit, didn't provide a useful capability, or took the same slot as a better choice. Those are all harder to balance, and ultimately may require redesign, because as you point out there were times when you could make an upgrade free and people still wouldn't take it because, hey, Way Better Thing is only 5pts.

But. The claim I was replying to was that upgrades were sparsely taken compared to the options available, that one-per-unit upgrades were rarely useful, and that some 80% of options were passed over to save points. None of that is true, and I think you can pretty easily demonstrate that by looking at 9th Ed competitive lists and seeing whether or not a majority of units with upgrades available took none of them.

Maybe more importantly, one of the issues you pointed out- upgrades that are never taken because there's a better thing in the same slot- is made worse by the approach of making all the upgrades free. Now instead of it being a no-brainer to pay 5pts for the Way Better Thing, it isn't a choice at all; they're all free so either you take the Way Better Thing or you're deliberately handicapping yourself.

As I've said before in this thread I like the idea of having some wargear be innate and I like sidegrades, both for thematic purposes as well as interesting choices rather than economical ones. What I do not understand is this revisionist history where GW had to make all upgrades free to get anybody to use them. That's absolutely not true; it's more accurate to say that some upgrades were rarely or never taken, and GW's solution is a real throwing-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater choice.

Realistically, that choice probably has everything to do with simplifying the game for approachability and nothing whatsoever to do with addressing legacy issues with certain options.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
in fact there's a ton of people that prefer PL system which is why they gravitated towards Age of Sigmar over 40k.

There's also many people who use to like points, but now prefer PL or (simpler point brackets) because the size of the game has grown exponentially since the early editions both in terms of standard points for play and amount of models fielded.

People need to understand that not every hobbyist has the same expectations. While you may value striving for perfect balance and granular points, that is a preference. Others may not value these factors when playing the game and actually prefer the simpler points scheme.

and some people need to understand that the problem is not the general system, but how GW used it for 40k
if 40k would use the same system as for AoS, there would not be a problem but they did not

because in AoS, if a weapon is an upgrade instead of a sidegrade, the unit with this weapon become its own entry (datacard) with its own points
no matter if this is the same box or not

the problem is not a point system with fixed unit sizes and were the basic weapons are already part of the cost
but that upgrades are free and the point costs are adjusted for one specific loadout and ignoring the options the unit has

Kings of War uses such a system and no one has a problem with it because you pay extra for upgrades and you have fixed unit sizes anyway
AoS works because upgrades cost points in the form that the unit gets its own entry

40k, everything is based on the boxes the models come in and those boxes were never designed to be balanced for the game
so it does not work and is inferior to the systems used before

Age of Sigmar Bastiladons show that Age of Sigmar uses pts, not power level.

If a Bastiladon is equipped with an Ark of Sotek it costs 180 points.
If a Bastiladon is equipped with a Solar Engine it costs 250 points.

If a Leman Russ Executioner is armed with sponsons it costs an extra 20 pts.

difference is you don't purchase singel models in AoS, like a unit has fixed points for 5 or 10 models
it is the right mix between, hence why it works
same as 40k worked in 3rd-7th

hence when someone saying that people like it in AoS and therefore must like it in 40k, yes if 40k ever gets the same system most people will like it, but it is not the same

but because change for the sake of change GW need to swing from one extreme (everything costs points) to another for 40k so that people really get that they must buy more

Ugh...

New system is fine... I'm a little spoiled in that I either have enough units of a type, was clairvoyant enough to magnetize most big options, or realize that for the few units I have that aren't... the point difference is so small that I don't really feel the hit.

but 40k needs to really really simplify. It's too bad people whined so much in the alpha-testing moments that eliminating S and T never happened. I've played GrimDark, it's pretty much that. Turns out it works just fine if you calm down and give it a chance.

When 40k has to compete against modern games and re-launches like Alpha-strike BattleTech, it just doesn't compare well

Don't worry, it will bloat up again all too soon... the small gap for someone new to learn the game with moderate ease will close... hopefully, some of them hang around

But set cards, set costs, and set unit sizes are just way better for the game. Did GW need to give the heavy bolter some more shots or whatever? Sure.

But its not set unit costs that's the problem here, it was timid improvements of some weaker weapons that needed a raise in the attack value to compete with heavy hitters

Simple enough concept to grasp if one has played other wargames or had to struggle teaching bloated 7th-9th edition and saw the missed opportunity in the indexes, or watched a new gamer learn modern games and then, in contrast, watched someone learn 40k, or played 11 editions of 40k

The SYSTEM we have now is a great idea.
Its implementation was flawed because the design team balked at yelling internet grognards wanting to keep Leading Edge Games and OGRE era stuff around way way past its expiration date. I remember those days. Glad we have better things now... happy the jam dice are gone... I'll be happier still when index cards and a couple pages of rules gets us past 80% of the need-to-know stuff in a game... almost there. Let it go. Let it happen

That is certainly a stance... not shared by the community.

Alas, we are in the age of narcissism.

 Lobokai wrote:
But set cards, set costs, and set unit sizes are just way better for the game.

Why?

 vict0988 wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
But set cards, set costs, and set unit sizes are just way better for the game.

Why?

Supposed ease of balance.

Which.. yeah there's a point for a case to be made. But those are all in systems that are competetnly designed with a slew of core mechanics that are not in existence in GW 40k since 8th onwards.-

So no, the answer is once again no.

 Lobokai wrote:
It's too bad people whined so much in the alpha-testing moments that eliminating S and T never happened.

And how exactly do you suggest representing the difference in defense between a grot and a titan without strength and toughness stats? Or the difference in offense between a laspistol and a volcano cannon? Eliminating S and T values would only work in a historical game where you only have human infantry, it's a game-destroying mistake in a game with the scope of 40k.

But its not set unit costs that's the problem here, it was timid improvements of some weaker weapons that needed a raise in the attack value to compete with heavy hitters

How exactly do you make having zero sponsons, zero hunter-killer missiles, and zero heavy stubbers compete with having all of those things? How do you make a laspistol compete with a plasma pistol without destroying the lore to do it?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
It's too bad people whined so much in the alpha-testing moments that eliminating S and T never happened.

And how exactly do you suggest representing the difference in defense between a grot and a titan without strength and toughness stats? Or the difference in offense between a laspistol and a volcano cannon? Eliminating S and T values would only work in a historical game where you only have human infantry, it's a game-destroying mistake in a game with the scope of 40k.

In those kind of games you usually just have "offensive" and "defensive" values. The titan might either roll more offensive dice and/or needs a lower value to succeed on those while it is the opposite for a grot.

a_typical_hero wrote:
In those kind of games you usually just have "offensive" and "defensive" values. The titan might either roll more offensive dice and/or needs a lower value to succeed on those while it is the opposite for a grot.

"Offense and defense" is just strength and toughness by a different name. You could definitely use a different system for representing those things if you wanted to do a complete re-write of 40k but that's not at all the same as just removing S and T from the game as rumored before 10th. The rumor/proposal then was that weapons would just roll to hit on BS/WS as normal, automatically wound, and then the defender would roll to save.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
But set cards, set costs, and set unit sizes are just way better for the game.

Why?

Supposed ease of balance.

Which.. yeah there's a point for a case to be made. But those are all in systems that are competetnly designed with a slew of core mechanics that are not in existence in GW 40k since 8th onwards.-

So no, the answer is once again no.

Well sure, balance is a good reason (ugh, can you imagine if 40k was balanced?! how annoying), but it's ease of entry and more time playing the game and less pouring over rules (at all levels). I've easily taught 300 people 40k over the years (I run an after-school club, not store, club, and am part of the Warhammer Alliance in North America... almost every big change in 10th was one I asked for... but almost all of them weren't done the whole way through). A big ask was shortened rules, trim of outliers, and streamline costs and wound mechanics... and please, unit info on cards. Most modern games are better at this, and consequently, teens and college students actually play them.

For every 10 people I've taught BattleTech, 9 have bought models for the game.
... for X-Wing, probably 5
... for CAV, 4
My friends who teach Legion and DropZone/Fleet, probably interests 4 in that game

GrimDarkFuture? Probably 3 out of every 10
40K? maybe 1 in 10.. and its by far my favorite game. But the rules bloat, the needless complexity of legacy mechanics (that do NOTHING) and the crawl of a shooting phase... ugh. Pretty much every game does similar things like this better. I can teach any game in 1 session and pretty much turn the player loose. 40K? not so much

GrimDark Future is such a similar experience, yet goes SO much faster and better. People get to play the game instead of reading a rulebook and arguing. I want this game to thrive, but incremental points below the 1% gradient and 20 books of rules per edition and roll to hit, to wound, to save, to not feel pain is killing a game that right up to the rules itself really does great pulling people towards it.

I'm not some dabbler (here's most, but not even close to all, of my collection): https://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-44276-65393_My%2040k%20Shelves.html and I've done pretty good in tournaments through the years. So I feel like I get it.

I love it when my models get used. In the heydays of 4th and when I finally gave in and used GrimDarkFuture Rules during 8th-9th and in rare moments in between, I'd have 6 battles/12 players using my stuff... 10th might be the first time in a while I've seen that be possible again with official rules.

 Lobokai wrote:


Well sure, balance is a good reason (ugh, can you imagine if 40k was balanced?! how annoying), but it's ease of entry and more time playing the game and less pouring over rules (at all levels). I've easily taught 300 people 40k over the years (I run an after-school club, not store, club, and am part of the Warhammer Alliance in North America... almost every big change in 10th was one I asked for... but almost all of them weren't done the whole way through). A big ask was shortened rules, trim of outliers, and streamline costs and wound mechanics... and please, unit info on cards. Most modern games are better at this, and consequently, teens and college students actually play them.

For every 10 people I've taught BattleTech, 9 have bought models for the game.
... for X-Wing, probably 5
... for CAV, 4
My friends who teach Legion and DropZone/Fleet, probably interests 4 in that game

GrimDarkFuture? Probably 3 out of every 10
40K? maybe 1 in 10.. and its by far my favorite game. But the rules bloat, the needless complexity of legacy mechanics (that do NOTHING) and the crawl of a shooting phase... ugh. Pretty much every game does similar things like this better. I can teach any game in 1 session and pretty much turn the player loose. 40K? not so much

GrimDark Future is such a similar experience, yet goes SO much faster and better. People get to play the game instead of reading a rulebook and arguing. I want this game to thrive, but incremental points below the 1% gradient and 20 books of rules per edition and roll to hit, to wound, to save, to not feel pain is killing a game that right up to the rules itself really does great pulling people towards it.

Mhm, no, disagree, hard pass, if you can't deal with basic math don't play a wargame. I agree on the books, but that is because GW insists of using a DLC type recurring revenue guaranteeing nonsensical release schedule, that inevitably because of lack of designer skills doesn't work at all.
Also did it occure to you that the buy in into 40k is far higher than x-wing or battle tech? I'd put that down as far more relevant factor as to why people pick it up or not.

I'm not some dabbler (here's most, but not even close to all, of my collection): https://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-44276-65393_My%2040k%20Shelves.html and I've done pretty good in tournaments through the years. So I feel like I get it.

I love it when my models get used. In the heydays of 4th and when I finally gave in and used GrimDarkFuture Rules during 8th-9th and in rare moments in between, I'd have 6 battles/12 players using my stuff... 10th might be the first time in a while I've seen that be possible again with official rules.

Good for you. doesn't change the fact that the bloat has system. That specificially are not the issue sof the points cost but rather GW's designers incompetency and buissness model should be plenty clear by now.
Twisting the one good core tenant / saving grace on the rules-balance front into a blunt instrument doesn't resolve the issue that GW consistently by design fails at maintaing even within an edition a design ethos.

 Lobokai wrote:
incremental points below the 1% gradient

Failing to put sponsons on your Baneblade is a loss of 5% of your 2000 point list.

As for introducing new players, you know what really hurts new player retention? Finding out they built their models wrong and a bunch of their stuff is going straight into the trash if they ever want to play real games and not feel like an idiot. A very slightly more complex point system makes a negligible difference in introducing people to 40k (since you're using demo forces made by the teacher) but it does great things for avoiding future ragequits.

 Lobokai wrote:
more time playing the game and less pouring over rules

Yes, this, absolutely. You are just sitting there, talking my life.

This was the big shake up/advance/revelation between WFB and AoS. Switch systems and the 'rules debates' disappeared overnight. Core rules were memorised by the time you got into your second game, leaving you with just the Warscrolls (and Battleplans, and Battalions, and Time of War sheets, I grant - but I know the design team recognised the bloat that was going on there early on) for reference during play. Limit the number of unit types in your early games, and you started to memorise those too.

What you were left with was a much more (arguably, subjectively) dynamic game that provided the spectacle and let you see cool things happen on the table.

Even when 40k adopted the AoS core rules, it was not quite 'there', but we do seem to be moving closer. I would opine that 8th and 9th took (some of) the wrong lessons from AoS (they also took some of the right ones), but 10th is beginning to lean closer.

I remain optimistic.

Ya, because AoS is such a good and liked game and has not fundamental issues at all and doesn't just turn into big thing spectacle...

Not Online!!! wrote:
Ya, because AoS is such a good and liked game and has not fundamental issues at all and doesn't just turn into big thing spectacle...

I think Sigmar is good, I like it, the core system is solid, and it is a miniatures game... spectacle is kind of the thing.

I think removing Toughness is a decent idea, the problem is the lack of granularity, going from 1W to 2W is a pretty big thing, so units stuck in the wrong one of those will feel very wrong. Like Seraphon Saurus Warriors were changed from 1W to 2W, that's a huge change. Going from 1W T2 to 1W T3 is not a huge change. Same thing with getting a 6+ FNP, while it would be easier if Iron Hands just got an extra wound from their bionics and that would be fine on characters and a little worse on vehicles, but it would be absurdly strong on 1W models, suddenly Iron Hands is the Scout faction.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
more time playing the game and less pouring over rules

Yes, this, absolutely. You are just sitting there, talking my life.

This was the big shake up/advance/revelation between WFB and AoS. Switch systems and the 'rules debates' disappeared overnight. Core rules were memorised by the time you got into your second game, leaving you with just the Warscrolls (and Battleplans, and Battalions, and Time of War sheets, I grant - but I know the design team recognised the bloat that was going on there early on) for reference during play. Limit the number of unit types in your early games, and you started to memorise those too.

What you were left with was a much more (arguably, subjectively) dynamic game that provided the spectacle and let you see cool things happen on the table.

Even when 40k adopted the AoS core rules, it was not quite 'there', but we do seem to be moving closer. I would opine that 8th and 9th took (some of) the wrong lessons from AoS (they also took some of the right ones), but 10th is beginning to lean closer.

I remain optimistic.

Weapons not being standardized and units not having a predictable BS and WS value actually slows down the game, having unique abilities on every datasheet also slows the game down. AoS is actually designed pretty terribly for speed of play, I'm a noob and using the new Seraphon book was a pain in the butt because the attack profiles are random, where as in WHFB you had a spear, a two-handed weapon, a sword and then every army had one of those which made remembering the weapon rules super easy, but when you have clubs, cruel clubs and wicked clubs, not to mention large, barbed and huge clubs then it becomes hard to remember so you have to go check the first half-dozen times. Changing weapon stats to balance datasheet options is going to cause more of this, with pts it's completely okay if plasma guns are more powerful than grenade launchers, as long as both have fun and fluffy rules you're good. 7th and earlier 40k had shoddy writing, I think that caused more arguments than the fact the rules were long, because you can have short unclear rules as well.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Ya, because AoS is such a good and liked game and has not fundamental issues at all and doesn't just turn into big thing spectacle...

I think Sigmar is good, I like it, the core system is solid, and it is a miniatures game... spectacle is kind of the thing.

Yeah truly a spectacle. Cough double turn nonsense, cough monsters monsters everywhere, cough armies that look not like armies at all but rather 2 diffrent tries of angry not even mythical monsters beating each other up.

No thank you, that is not spectacle, that's a bunch of big models duking it out on average and tactically not interesting at all. Give me HH or hell even 7th over whatever this. And the majority agrees. The broader audience that people hope to gain via "streamlining" does not exist. At ALL, even when the barrier to entry is lower, cue Dawn of war into DoW 2 into Dead on arrival 3.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Yeah truly a spectacle.

I meant more generally - the painted miniatures and terrain creating the 'spectacle' is kinda the point of a miniatures game?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Cough double turn nonsense,

The double turn, and manipulating the double turn, is one of the things that makes Age of Sigmar.

Not Online!!! wrote:

And the majority agrees.

The majority of... what?

Not Online!!! wrote:

cue Dawn of war into DoW 2 into Dead on arrival 3.

Oh, they lost me on DOW2, but I understand I am among the minority on that one.

 Lobokai wrote:
But set cards, set costs, and set unit sizes are just way better for the game.

Oh, I found Hitchen's Razor once again...

Strange how it keeps popping up.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Yeah truly a spectacle.

I meant more generally - the painted miniatures and terrain creating the 'spectacle' is kinda the point of a miniatures game?

yeah, but an actual as an army discernable force looks better than spam which is what AoS mini factions often devolve into.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Cough double turn nonsense,

The double turn, and manipulating the double turn, is one of the things that makes Age of Sigmar.

and one of the reason why it tactically not satsifying game at all.

Not Online!!! wrote:

And the majority agrees.

The majority of... what?

here, the online community and we had already threads discussing that it is a significant enough community, and locally.

Not Online!!! wrote:

cue Dawn of war into DoW 2 into Dead on arrival 3.

Oh, they lost me on DOW2, but I understand I am among the minority on that one.

But that is preciscly the issue, DoW 2 was a CoH 2 clone. it was trendfollowing. it departed from DoW 1 and classical structure of RTS into a more tactically advanced less base building formula and that already was a problem for many, understandably so and fwiw DoW 2 is less liked and played it has 3 times less than soulstorm, and still nearly tripple the ammount of players to DoW 3.
Then when they wanted to create a bastardisation into the moba market because it was the biggest and easiest to get into for a player and still is the biggest potential market it died. This is the same situation.

You can streamline something to death, and that is what AoS is to many.

And it is funny, because you can check Age of empires series and see the same issue. IV was far less liked and can't even compete with II.
And 3 beeing the stepchild often doesn't get enough attention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
But set cards, set costs, and set unit sizes are just way better for the game.

Oh, I found Hitchen's Razor once again...

Strange how it keeps popping up.

Again it can be, see f.e. historicals often operating with unit formations as a given.
but then again historicals on average are also far better designed mechanically...

ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
incremental points below the 1% gradient

Failing to put sponsons on your Baneblade is a loss of 5% of your 2000 point list.

As for introducing new players, you know what really hurts new player retention? Finding out they built their models wrong and a bunch of their stuff is going straight into the trash if they ever want to play real games and not feel like an idiot. A very slightly more complex point system makes a negligible difference in introducing people to 40k (since you're using demo forces made by the teacher) but it does great things for avoiding future ragequits.

Baneblade sponsons (both sets) are a higher firepower on a higher durability platform than an IG squad, so I guess you would be okay if I brought 3-4 additional IG squads for free every 1k points.

After all, each one is less than 5% of a list.

And I feel like I built my models wrong by not putting sponsons on them, so idfk why you think the current system fixes that sensation. Heck, I feel like I bought the wrong models in the first place since the FW Baneblade can only have one set of sponsons.

Not Online!!! wrote:

yeah, but an actual as an army discernable force looks better than spam which is what AoS mini factions often devolve into.

Hmm. Got one in mind?

Not Online!!! wrote:

and one of the reason why it tactically not satsifying game at all.

Manipulating and using the double turn is one of the tactics in Age of Sigmar. Once players have that surrounded, the game really opens up.

Not Online!!! wrote:

here, the online community and we had already threads discussing that it is a significant enough community, and locally.

I have to disagree. This forum represents a tiny, tiny fraction of players. I might go as far to say as being statistically insignificant.

Not Online!!! wrote:

You can streamline something to death, and that is what AoS is to many.

And what of the people for whom that is not the case? This was being discussed a little earlier in this thread - these games are not one thing to all people. There are so many ways of approaching them. Indeed, that is their strength.

Not Online!!! wrote:

but then again historicals on average are also far better designed mechanically...

Citation needed.

This is not targeted at you personally, but there seems to be an almost manic desire in this thread to deal in absolutes. These games are way too broad in their function for that to be an easy fit.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

yeah, but an actual as an army discernable force looks better than spam which is what AoS mini factions often devolve into.

Hmm. Got one in mind?

Giant faction f.e. Beasts of chaos which is bullgors and a bunch of ungors. Then we have fations that are just too small, like flesh eater courts.

Not Online!!! wrote:

and one of the reason why it tactically not satsifying game at all.

Manipulating and using the double turn is one of the tactics in Age of Sigmar. Once players have that surrounded, the game really opens up.

nothing says mechanically satsfying then getting igougo problematised 2 times in a row. and here i thought you were for modern games design.

Not Online!!! wrote:

here, the online community and we had already threads discussing that it is a significant enough community, and locally.

I have to disagree. This forum represents a tiny, tiny fraction of players. I might go as far to say as being statistically insignificant.

Which is as already stated wrong, it's further not just dakka even if you regard it injustly as a saltmine, and ignores the last local bit aswell.

Not Online!!! wrote:

You can streamline something to death, and that is what AoS is to many.

And what of the people for whom that is not the case? This was being discussed a little earlier in this thread - these games are not one thing to all people. There are so many ways of approaching them. Indeed, that is their strength.

then they shall make a diffrent game and not turn 40k into aos but space. because this is how you get a dow 3 situation, because if i would want AoS i go play AoS.

Not Online!!! wrote:

but then again historicals on average are also far better designed mechanically...

Citation needed.

This is not targeted at you personally, but there seems to be an almost manic desire in this thread to deal in absolutes. These games are way too broad in their function for that to be an easy fit.

Oh look, we are talking about wargames, so let's see what is the core of a wargame, it is the tactical shool of battle, and concerned with the representation of such. Therefore the core mechanics should be discernable from that. But what is this, we lack core mechanics to interact with an opponents forces:

- Fog of war mechanics.
- Suppression mechanics
- Terraintypes.
- Fortifications
- Options for units that aren't just attacking something like: Digging in, Tankriding, skirmishing, providing suppression fire.
- Offmap support mechanics, like reinforcement manouvres, offmap artillery, etc.
- actual morale mechanics. Yay we got battleshock... huray..
- Denial mechanics like gas, fire, barricades.
- Hazard mechanics, fighting on a deathworld is clearly the same as fighting in a hive
- tactical mission design is lackluster.
- side objective ammount to nonsensical stipulations.

Not Online!!! wrote:

No thank you, that is not spectacle, that's a bunch of big models duking it out on average and tactically not interesting at all.

Just because you prefer the sci-fi setting doesn't automatically make fantasy not a spectacle...

A Gothizzar harvester fighting a Cygor is as much a spectacle as a Dreadnought charging a land raider....

Oh, and i don't know why you think every army spams big monsters, thats not the case at all lol, clearly you're talking about a game you don't know, which is understandable since you dislike the fantasy setting


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
snipped to make the thread actually readable

Giants = Knights, that style of army exists in 40k too.

Beasts of chaos has multiple different approaches you can take, its not only Bullgors and Ungors at all. Yes, bullgors are one of the heaviest hitters in the army, but the same is true with 40k, you get one heavy hitter that people spam in every list, then units that work well with it.

AoS isn't the same kind of IGOUGO than 40k, combat always alternates, and you get to use redeploy to possibly prevent charges. Oh and if you play well against your opponent's double turn, they open themselves up to your double turn, with their heavy hitters probably exposed.

Yes AoS has a smaller community, for the same reason that any game that isnt 40k has a smaller community. 40k has been there forever and is the most accessible game.

Agreed about historicals having better mechanics to truly represent a wargame tho

And my oppinion about knights is well known. If i had my way they'd be in their current state not an fieldable army. They'd be reworked to have household guards, smaller bots even an actual unit selection. But then again i'd also curb harlequins back to where they belong.

My second GW army was Ogres and third Chaos warriors. I don't prefer Sci-Fi over Fantasy i like both things. My problem is that AoS looks like a monster spam circus, compared to the actual somewhat army like looking armies of the past.

The spam is a parade exemple of everything wrong with GW rulesdesign in 40k and AoS. the AoS no holds bared no FOC limits approach is to blame.

Double turn and switching initiative still doesn't break up the igougo problem in a turn and i am sick of people pretending it does so in aos.

AoS has locally a smaller community than even WHFB which has been dead since when? 2010`? 13 fething years and AoS couldn't catch up in the player base. Is that enough of a proof .

Changing the pts system to the AoS system is not an improvement period.