I've realized my problem with AoS... [Archive] - BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum

View Full Version : I've realized my problem with AoS...

Muninwing

07-21-2015, 10:07 PM

i have a guess that the Age of Sigmar will eventually become something interesting, maybe even worth playing. but i started seeing what it was, heard that there was no WHF 9th, and wrote it off.

it took me some time to realize why.

flashback: fall 2001. i had seen 40k as a game before, almost bought a starter set when i was much younger and my brother had gotten a catalogue, but i'd been turned off by my utter lack of painting skill, and the money i'd need to get started. a friend of mine, who would go on to co-own my LGS heard me voice my curiosity about the game, and offered me a ton of models -- he'd gotten three of the 3rd ed starter sets, and as such had about 90 Dark Eldar models he had no use for. "$30 and they're yours, and i'll throw in an extra copy of the rules"

i went home that day, wondering if i should. i did some research, looking up info about the game online. i found a page that had collected transcribed fluff from various sources and hyperlinked to more fluff. i read about Sanguinius' fight with a bloodthirster, about the dropsite massacre... i learned about the treachery of Horus and the failure of the Emperor. i learned about Magnus pleading for continuance at Nikea, and later for sanctuary when the wolves came for his children. i learned about the nameless guardsman whose sacrifice gave the mortally wounded Emperor the chance to stop Horus, and felt as i did when reading history books of great deeds, or when reading quality fiction of depth and richness. when the sun came up, i was still reading.

and that was how i got my start in wargaming.

but i was an avid reader. and i know the gravity that a good background, a good story can create. the author can either create a fully fleshed-out world, or show you enough of the world to make you believe that it is fully fleshed-out -- an those hints are often far more compelling. i wanted to see Gilead before the fall far more than Camelot (i hear it's a silly place anyway). i wanted to read the narrative of Beren and Luthien as a whole story and not as snippets through the Silmarillion. i wanted to know who made the labyrinths from where the Balrog rose, or what Delirium claims is "on the other side of the sky," or what great adventures Li Mu Bai and Yu Shu Lien had with the Green Destiny, or exactly what Mance Raider saw in the frozen tombs. there's a completeness that each of these holds and creates that spins an air of weight about itself.

40k had that, for me, from the beginning. sure, i was three editions in, and it would expand in its own way from there -- sometimes in rich and interesting ways, like much of the HH novels... and sometimes, as with the "Oll Persson was an immortal" it would be obvious that the new writers did not understand why the old fluff had the significance it did. when i realized that those i played 40k with were more into WHFB, i pondered the entry into another arm of the hobby.

i again did research. this time it was easier -- i got a copy of the old WHFRP books, and the Liber Chaotica, and similar sources so i could read up on the history of their world, and understood that it too was a fully-realized place that felt as if it was an alternate history. the rise of Ulthulan, the corruption from within, the struggles of humanity, the whispers of the primal compulsions of chaos -- it all felt real.

some people throw themselves into a fandom. i have enough students even still who come to school wearing their house colors, doodling snitches and brooms when they should be taking notes, and who look surprised when i tell them i'd be a Ravenclaw. i'm amused, and i like a good read, but i don't feel like it's my home. even with GW worlds, i hold myself back from jumping in headfirst... but the genius of the Liber Chaotica was that it made me forget to hold back... it was as if i'd found the hidden library that inserts itself in my dreams, and i found the worst possible book to pick up and bring home to read. it felt real. and thus, the time i would invest in creating my armies felt as if i was sharing in something far larger than myself.

i bought in, somewhere around 6th, and played strongly throughout 7th. 8th saw my army severely changed, and for the lesser -- i don't say for the worse, because they could still function on the table... but the arbitrary shifts they had made turned them into lesser and less important than they had once been. they lost gravity.

what i've recently realized is that Age of Sigmar has no gravity to it.

to sidestep for a bit, i should mention that gravitas -- that sense of weight and significance and importance i was alluding to above -- is actually hard to create. often it takes years and revisions and alterations and a massive amount of work in order to capture that feel. many good, experienced writers cannot do so. one of my favorite classics - The Count of Monte Cristo -- has virtually no weight to it, and the same author's better-known Three Musketeers has perhaps one scene of weight (the former priest executing his totally-not-a-ninja ex-wife) amid a ton of action and fun and swordfighting. but both of them have real history to draw from in order to create that weight for them. fantasy and science fiction have to construct it themselves.

games do not need this if they have good rules, but without it the drive to be a part of it is largely just another fandom, just a general hobby. if it lacks depth, it lacks weight, and therefore it cannot hold my interest.

Malifaux is like this. it's a interesting system (but not interesting enough for me to want to play it too much), with an interesting background (which i'd like to read more about, but there isn't much effort made to flesh it out), and some not-terrible characters. it is, therefore to me, a novelty and not a serious game because i'll have fun and put it aside without a second thought.

Warmachine is like this as well, and Hordes. being that they are both nation-sized games with brewing political and martial machinations, the fact that there are only really about ten people in each country that actually matter is remarkably shortsighted. it reads less like a complete and fleshed-out world, and more like a one-off module for D&D. it tries to substitute gimmick and unsuccessful tropes for quality writing. this is of course my own opinion, and others may find the depth in these that i have not, or they may have bought into the fandom which is related, but i fail to see the compelling elements in these that make me want to be a part.

more likely than not, this gravity is really just my own justification for buying in, and the "fandom" argument is nothing more than my own bias. so interpret as necessary, and insert your own as needed.

Age of Sigmar has been, from my limited perspective of fourteen years' worth of paying attention, the second-worst implementation in wargaming that i can point to. the worst -- certain parts of the 5th ed 40k FAQs that forgot what a FAQ is for -- is also admittedly a personal grudge of mine. allowing the fanbase to believe that WHF 9th was coming to allow everyone to dust off their rank-and-file units and play afresh a game steeped in its own constructed and complete history, only to provide a game that is not fully imagined and plays so markedly different was asking for backlash. plain and simple.

it might turn into an interesting game. it might develop, and enrich, and grow. it might be the very reworking that others have claimed (with far too much gusto to not be blind to the missing weight) that WHF needed.

it might not. and since it was released with so little attempt at a fully-fleshed-out setting (relying on its history and the game equivalent of name-dropping), as well as blatant gaps in acknowledging what the players truly wanted, "not" seems far more likely.

the worst thing? i'm part of the problem. WHF has been slipping, stagnating, for years. i've bought exactly three boxes of WHF models in the last five years -- the Wood Elf stag riders because my wife wants to paint them, a 50% off box of Witch Elves i'll be converting to DE, and the new Bestigors when they came out just before 8th dropped. i've got 5000 points of Beasts (formerly of Nurgle, then mysteriously just... not), and another 3000 of Ogres. i've got a 3000-point High Elf army in mostly secondhand bits and pieces that i never got around to in favor of other projects. why would i buy anything? and with that stagnation, something big needed to come out of it.

but AoS wasn't what was needed.

the End Times was interesting, but ultimately just a gimmick that they probably should have milked for far longer, made more of the limited models (i'd love to just assemble and paint a Nagash, or kitbash it with a Chaos Knight), and extended with a community-involved campaign. show that the railroading at the end of Storm of Chaos was a mistake, planned out what would happen in each next phase based on player involvement, and then steer it to a slightly different end based on whoever ultimately won, tied into some design elements and game specifics of the new game.

that's why a "40k end times?" is at heart a foolish idea to entertain -- they could only do it if they wanted to poison their cash cow.

AoS may still grow, and it may have enrichment opportunities in the future, but it had a botched introduction. and unless they put a lot more work into the next phase of the product, they are not going to keep it afloat. alienating many of their fans was a bad idea from the start, but they still need to sell models and books to stay in business, so they need avenues by which to do these things... but they have not realized that it's the fluff just as much as the game that makes or breaks them.

i propose a "what if?" situation. i want anyone who bothers reading this to imagine what WHF would be like if they had decided on doing it right -- releasing AoS in such a way that it grew its gravitas, connected with its roots, and added to the experience of its fans. imagine for a moment that they were a little more up-front with their community, and that they created the best possible environment in which to debut and grow their new product. incidentally, the "appropriate time" for something, or the creation of such a situation in which the appropriate time comes to be, is what the rhetorical term "Kairos" means. for those Tzeentch fans.

imagine, for a moment, that they extended the End Times throughout another year, but explained that it was going to be exactly as it says on the tin -- the end of the world as you knew it, to be replaced and not rebooted once the ET campaign was over. now also imagine that they supported ET as a full campaign. then, once it came to a close, imagine that they did not release the final story... they announced the victors, and anyone who had bought one of their books could use a code inside to set up an account that would allow them to access a website that was filled with all those questions that you always wanted to know the answers to, as well as the final explanation of the end.

now imagine that they gave a definite release date for the new product.

imagine that rather than being lazy and using the same bulletproof plot-armor characters, they used the goings-on to kill off some of them, building both new characters and the feeling that there were many other worthy people you just hadn't heard of. in other words, escape the warmahordes problem of boiling international conflicts down to the goings-on of a class president election. they could use some for their fluff purposes, but as the game finds its footing they should all be phased out gradually in favor of a new generation (or many) of characters that will change as the game grows.

now imagine that, since 40k is largely caught up to 7th ed, they then devoted monthly product releases large or small to AoS, in order to bring that game up to speed.

imagine, for a second, that the release had gone something like this:

month 1: fiction piece, novella length, from the point of view of someone who had become a Stormcast, about rising to battle and being redeemed, filling in many of the blanks at the end of the End Times books. also, this could introduce the idea behind the new shift in such a way that did not have players scratching their heads at release, and even would drum up interest in what the models would look like.

month 2: starter set announced with stormcast vs khorne (now that people know what a stormcast is), with a steady slow stream of leaks about what the game will be... including a definite announcement that WHF9 will not be a thing (the sooner your diehards get their anger out, the better), had it not been made clear even sooner. this month could feature a 40k release, and then the actual starter could have come out to an expectant crowd instead of an annoyed one.

month 3: fiction piece, novella length, about the eternal wars of chaos from the point of view of a Nurgle warrior, seeing the rise and primacy of Khorne... and the capture and blunting of Slaanesh (but with care to note that the daemons are still around, setting the stage for an all-chaos campaign or game or the like for later), ending with the resolution to be patient (for eventually everything rots away). release the new starter a week later, having also added new excitement to Khorne's side of the new game.

month 4: hardcover book like an atlas -- detailing how the worlds interact, who is where, what is happening, why players should care, and how their games make sense in the new format... with a section at the end with rules for campaigns, and a teaser at the end announcing a forthcoming larger campaign.... this way, it both encourages play in a variety of ways, and the new cosmos and maps of various places and worlds and their interactions could actually make sense. 90% fluff and information and 10% relevant game resource would mean that it wouldn't be a must-buy for everyone, but it would definitely add dept and weight to the surroundings.

month 5: AFTER all allegiances and factions and worlds etc are detailed (in month 4), release of warscrolls for each old model, so that players can get a feel for how it will all come together, and can accurately feel out how their army will play and fit into the greater puzzle, instead of attempting to force the old system to make sense with the new rules. be clear that (a) there will be a later expansion to army-sized conflict, and (b) the old models are not necessarily going to have anything to do with the new game.

month 6: release of three new starter sets and a small campaign for them, so that they (and the two already-released) were completely up-to-date... maybe focus on Nurgle, Humans, and whatever the Orcs/goblins become. take care to fit it into the atlas.

also unify the online element of the game -- including the creation of an online record-system for campaigns (maybe a once-a-year $10 subscription that you can use to make army lists, upload pics of your units, share lists with other registered users in preparation for games, buy from the webstore, access your datascrolls/warscrolls/etc, and set up long-term campaign structures). debut it with the 5-army campaign, but have the ability for the other factions to use it as well, as helpers to one of the existing sides.

month 7: full-sized novel. fluff piece from the point of view of the former generals of Slaanesh, competing with each other and the skaven and others for supremacy... including some hints at shamylanesque twists. pave the way for the rumormill, invest in creating the background, and show chaos in various forms by depicting more information as to what it really is or what it wants. if the new game wants to use a varied interpretation for of what Chaos is, use this novel to describe and depict it.

month 8. another 3-faction release, with starter sets for each, new generals (named or not), and a campaign focused around the three. maybe the old-world lizardmen, and the undead, as well as tzeentch. create a campaign around them in order to drum up interest. given the lizardmen's ties to the creators of the former world, and the legends of Nagash that were so integral to the old fluff, the three primary factions could be competing for a number of different causes. map and track based on the month 6 program, and use that later.

month 9: rules expansion: how to use more complicated magic, additional rules for supporting units, and additional rules for groups of models that act and operate as one.

month 10: novel-length fluff piece from the point of view of a human in the new world-construct, rising through the ranks and pondering the past as well as the future, and some seeds of chaos beginning to take root. show the effects of the month 8 campaign, and use the novel to broaden information about exactly how the worlds are organized and implemented.

month 11: another major release: Slaanesh, dwarves, skaven, and Elves, with a campaign that focuses on some dramatic upheaval. during the expansion, it would start laying out everything people want to know about Slaanesh and its place in the new setting, and the idea that nothing is set in stone in the new expanding and developing plot.

month 12: release rules for integrating old Bretonnians into humans, giving varied elves specific flavor, and reincorporating Beasts into chaos... think like dataslates (or the new DA codex) providing new detachments that fit a specific theme, as well as giving benefits and flaws (only actually add flaws as a balancing tactic instead of just giving away the rhino farm).

also, expanding off of the month 6 online tools, debut a chess-style/fencing-style ranking system for players of a competitive mind. it'd allow for finding matchups at appropriate skill levels, as well as reincorporating a tournament/competitive nature to the game. it could be simple or complex, could be expanded later to be useable via apps or xbox live or the like, could be used to unlock special achievements via campaigns that would perhaps give their characters further options or ranks or the like in later applications/expansions, and set up a system that would translate into tournaments.

reinstitute prize support if it goes well.

have the standings of the various factions influence (a) faq-balancing of warscrolls, (b) benefits/perks in the next campaign, (c) elevation of certain generalities to named heroes, including the ability for campaign/tournament winners once a year to create new named characters for inclusion into the fluff and perhaps the game.

and, most notable, be up-front and clear at the debut of this new plan that this is the direction they want to go in, and why.

month 13: major campaign: The Return of Slaanesh, with plot and historical/current battles, and using the above-mentioned tracking system for determining the next phase of the world-building. have it span many months, incorporate many phases, and show how the development of the new world is going, even as new events and personnel changes alter the game.

month 14: release apocalypse-style rules for larger battles, including the use of larger flying beasts and war-constructs. have it play into the Slaanesh campaign.

month 15: release small-scale skirmish rules for the creation of mordheim-style warbands for use in a specific setting, including specs for treasure-carrying, possessions, equipment, and stealth. include in the campaign the reasons for warband action, and lead it to a finale partially based upon the effects of the players.

month 16: release a new expansion. no new armies, but a new world/realm/area to play in. a fragment from the past that somehow broke through time, with potential treasures. set up a campaign that would require smaller skirmish games, stealth, and trickery (perhaps using space hulk blip rules) in order to raid the wealth of the new plane... individual maps and mods would come out every week for a couple months to play different scenarios. it would also require standard play, and allow larger play. if successful, make it a once-a-year big release and add warscrolls specific to the new arena (next year could be sea combat, or flying, or jungle, etc etc.

in the future... two releases per year. one would detail a new method of play and/or add new locations to the atlas. the other would be a campaign. each would have in it new models for various factions (1-2 specialized kinds for each faction that fit the new playstyle or events), each would further the plot, each would expand the world. occasionally, a named character might die and no longer be playable. new ones would come along. maybe best-scoring players as per month 12 could be allowed to help design new characters.

if these were once-a-month releases, with the occasional step aside for 40k, you'd have a completely new game, less old player loss, reasons for new models, events that would get players active, reestablishment of tournaments and the competitive end, a feel for the new world, and a fanbase that would feel actively involved in their hobby. in a year and a half or so, it would become as established as the old WHF was, and begin to feel as complete by way of feeling like it is developing and living instead of just existing.

rather than making it obvious that GW was trying to shed the dead weight of WHF, as they had begun to consider it, they could have (and still could) build something new and aspire to the same scale of what they used to have. instead of a new game that is not really for old models, and the distinct feeling of shame at having believed in WHF9, that so many of us have acting as a roadblock to actually enjoying AoS for what it is and what it could be.

Cutter

07-21-2015, 11:36 PM

I made it in a couple of thousand words, but you lost me at 'imagine'.

I miss the Old World too.

ZPG bad, for now.

daboarder

07-22-2015, 12:46 AM

stupid internet ate my reply :(

Mr Mystery

07-22-2015, 01:00 AM

Curiously, the Old World didn't have that much of a narrative to it.

Yes it had seriously decent novels set in it (Gotrek and Felix, Time of Legends to name a few), but the world itself? It lacked (lacks?) the depth of 40k. A large part of that is it had identifiable 'goodies' and villains everyone would recognise as villains.

But being rooted in European mythology for the most part, that's perhaps unexpected.

Me, I've had a read of the Age of Sigmar hardback, and I have to say, I'm intrigued to learn more.

We know about the Mortal Realms, but very little about them. We're not even completely sure where everyone is. Is this a pocket of the Realm of Chaos or not?

What exactly happened to Grimnir's shards? The Dwarfs won't speak of it.

Slaanesh got Gimpnapped, and Morathi is 'different' or 'changed'....

Where are the Elves?

What's going to happen if/when Sigmar gets Ghal Maraz back? We know it's been located, as that's the 'cliff hanger' at the end of the first book.

Lots and lots to find out, to the point I'm sorely tempted to get each of the Novels and Short Stories they release alongside it.

And if I do, I think I'll do a thread broadly charting what occurs in each, though ideally without too many spoilers.

daboarder

07-22-2015, 01:06 AM

:rolleyes:

wow, and here i must have just imagined the literally hundreds of books written about the old world by black library.

THANKS MYSTERY, always set us straight, sorry for doubting GW my bad man

Cutter

07-22-2015, 01:34 AM

stupid internet ate my reply :(

Bad internet, no biscuit.

Me, I've had a read of the Age of Sigmar hardback, and I have to say, I'm intrigued to learn more.

Service guarantees citizenship...

We know about the Mortal Realms, but very little about them. We're not even completely sure where everyone is. Is this a pocket of the Realm of Chaos or not?

What exactly happened to Grimnir's shards? The Dwarfs won't speak of it.

Slaanesh got Gimpnapped, and Morathi is 'different' or 'changed'....

Where are the Elves?

What's going to happen if/when Sigmar gets Ghal Maraz back? We know it's been located, as that's the 'cliff hanger' at the end of the first book.

Don't care. And I don't mean that in the casual knee-jerk everything-you-say-is-wrong-because-reasons fashion. I really, deeply, from the bottom of my neckbeard don't care about Ziggy's storyline right now. Still too much butt-hurt over the end times and everything they have wrought since. Maybe that'll change, but I'm not holding my breath.

Lots and lots to find out, to the point I'm sorely tempted to get each of the Novels and Short Stories they release alongside it.

And if I do, I think I'll do a thread broadly charting what occurs in each, though ideally without too many spoilers.

I would read with genuine interest.

Mr Mystery

07-22-2015, 02:15 AM

Get paid tomorrow, so should be able to get the first raft of novels then :)

Quaade

07-22-2015, 02:51 AM

Cutter

07-22-2015, 03:05 AM

However rules can add gravity to the fluff.

Example please.

Charon

07-22-2015, 04:07 AM

One of my personal problems with AOS is: I do not care about ultra high fantasy at all.
These settings make an interesting historical background (Eldar at their peak in 40k for example) but are utter uniteresting if experienced first hand. Gods and moresuperawesome powers of doom everywhere. Makes it as boring as them gameplay itself for me.

Denzark

07-22-2015, 04:43 AM

i the worst thing? i'm part of the problem. WHF has been slipping, stagnating, for years. i've bought exactly three boxes of WHF models in the last five years -- the Wood Elf stag riders because my wife wants to paint them, a 50% off box of Witch Elves i'll be converting to DE, and the new Bestigors when they came out just before 8th dropped. i've got 5000 points of Beasts (formerly of Nurgle, then mysteriously just... not), and another 3000 of Ogres. i've got a 3000-point High Elf army in mostly secondhand bits and pieces that i never got around to in favor of other projects. why would i buy anything? and with that stagnation, something big needed to come out of it.

but AoS wasn't what was needed.

Muninwing - 'AOS wasn't what was needed.' What you actually mean was AoS wasn't what was needed by you. By 'You' I mean the Royal You - including your gaming group etc.

Your commentary about how many minis you have bought in the last 5 years, for me, proves something - that you are not the target demographic.

AoS is about bringing in new blood and countering several criticisms about the problems of entr to WFB - cost and complexity. AoS has completely wiped those arguments away.

So, in order to ahcieve that, WFB wasn't what was needed - AoS may be the cleverest thing in terms of measure of effectiveness - coming up with a plan that achieves objectives - that a company has done for a while.

I offer no commentary as to whether I agree or not - I am just trying to empathise with the plan from the GW perspective. And, as I said, AoS was what they thought they needed.

Quaade

07-22-2015, 05:04 AM

Example please.

Lord Celestant on Dracosath for example.

The Stormcast Eternals are described as mean mother****ers who when under the right command will fight to the death. The Lord Celestant's Command Ability makes all Stormcast Eternals within 24" immune to Battleshock tests. Without this rule, the preceding fluff text would be so light as to it carrying no meaning, no gravity. The rule instead reinforces the fluff.

Example of the opposite. Tactical Marines are described as some of the meanest and most versatile mother****ers around, yet nothing in their rules support this when on the table and compared to the cost you pay for them, they are rather subpar when compared to equivalent points elsewhere.

Mr Mystery

07-22-2015, 05:11 AM

There's also the 'easy back in' nature of it.

One of the issues Warhammer faced was that continuously long term players found it easy enough to keep up - armies grew with the scope of the game, and 8th Ed made those games more enjoyable (your experience may vary on that point) as more of the vast collection accrued could get involved in the fisticuffs.

But consider those who have the traditional hobby lull - typically those who went to Uni/College, or otherwise found the irritating, pesky real world insisting it intrude on their leisure time.

They may only have been out for an Edition or so, but the game expanded pretty quickly in terms of both variety and quality of models, and the size of armies commonly seen. That can be dispiriting, as you can get the (not accurate) impression that nobody plays below say 3,000 points, and your old force barely scratches 1,000 points (consider when Chaos Knights with Chaos Armour were 80 points a pop. Might actually have been more?). That's a disincentive to dig back in.

AoS, for any perceived failings has helped to do away with this.

People with 'odds and sods' collections can now realistically cobble together a force and get some games in, especially as the rules are free. From there, some might well find it to their tastes, and start buying more models and paints.

And that's the 'hidden genius' of AoS. It's imminently accessible to all. Brand new? Grab whatever you want, because it's now an army. Returning gamer? Dust off the troops, they're an army again. Long term, constant player? Yeah that's a big army, but you can field as little as you want now. Each of those three examples make it easy to generate sales. Boxed set here, pot of paint there - it all adds up.

The plan behind AoS shows something of a change in GW's marketing philosophy. The dependence/intent of 'bigger is better. GO BIGGER' is noticeably missing.

From a marketing point of view, it's a clever, if pehaps somewhat bold, move. Looking to get started? Just grab a Batallion and you've got a decent sized force. And those boxed sets have long been a favourite of newbies and those starting a new army. The price point is about right on them, and the savings make them doubly attractive.

Prior to AoS, unless buying the boxed game you'd be in for....£45 rulebook, £25-£30 Army Book (depending on soft or hardback), Character, Batallion (costs vary according to taste). AoS has instantly taken up to £75 off that entry tag. Price has never been an issue for me as a gamer, so it's not made me any more or less likely to do a given force however I want to do it, but it's opened it wide open.

Path Walker

07-22-2015, 06:28 AM

While 40k has the Horus Heresy Series, the Night Lords trilogy, Gaunts Ghosts and loads more great novels, the fiction for Fantasy has always been a bit lacking, they tried with the Time of Legends series but it never took off, and barring the occasional Gotrek and Felix book, nothing else they did with Fantasy was ever up there with the feel of 40k until The End Times.

People like to pretend that Fantasy has over 30 years of lore(I've seen people on this forum say they threw away this away), but they've obviously not read the books before 4th edition, that's when it really became a cohesive whole with all the elements in place to form the Old World properly (seriously, read the 3rd edition Rulebook and tell me thats the same world as 8th edition) but it never had the same weight to it, the same importance, that they managed to get with 40k.

People like to act hard done by and as if they're wounded by the change from Fantasy to Age of Sigmar when literally nothing has changed for them, they still have all the books and rules they had 3 months ago, their models can still be used to play the game they like but now a company that wasn't seeing it as a viable product isn't supporting it, this happens every day, people have played earlier editions of games, even Warhammer Fantasy, for years.

I still play Necromunda regularly, a friend of mine plays Ragnarok Online on a private server, I know groups that play OD&D or Retroclones every week, I have board games by companies that have been out of business for years. All are still perfectly playable without support from the company.

A company is a company, they provided you with a product. You didn't take out a service contract with them, they don't owe you 30 more years of a fictional world, they've given you the keys to the Old World if you want them, make it your own now, or don't.

chipset35

07-22-2015, 06:32 AM

The only reason I started buying and playing Table Top miniatures (Napoleonics) again after a 23 year lapse and even considered Games Workshop was due to them wiping the slate clean with Warhammer Fantasy and starting anew with AoS.

Now, I loved the Warhammer Fantasy books and video games, but I had no desire to collect or paint them at what I felt was "too late".
The amount of mini's was staggering, and I am content to play Total War: Warhammer as my WHF fix.

Same for Warhammer 40K, I would rather play the PC games than come into the hobby of WH:40K painting etc so late in the game.

However, with Age of Sigmar despite all its flaws and weakness, gets me started at the "ground floor".
I can take my time collecting and painting and reading.

On the subject of reading....when a good warhammer/ warhammer 40K novel comes out it motivates me to play in some way shape of form.
AoS needs a good novel fast!
As what has been released so far is good, but not on par with say something written by Dan Abnett.

Erik Setzer

07-22-2015, 08:21 AM

It's funny that people claim the Warhammer world had no stories or anything and was dull and boring. Such people clearly didn't have the WFB army books, or pay attention to the various campaigns and events (not the one they undid), or the fluff in WFRP, etc.

And then to claim AoS is somehow dynamic and awesome? Ha.

We have Sigmar surviving a cataclysm and somehow bringing back all these heroes who died, making their final sacrifice really mean nothing. Worse, we're now to believe they're powerful enough to go toe-to-toe with gods. As an added bonus, when Sigmar resurrected various races, the races all forgot what they were called, which seems rather odd, like maybe Sigmar screwed up his resurrection spell. Oh, and Chaos, getting in on the fun of not being able to come up with new characters, created a new champion and named it Archaon in memory of their old one, who it clearly isn't, because he accomplished his mission and wouldn't want to be brought back just to fight endlessly for gods he doesn't particularly care about.

So we have these ill-defined "realms" which are really just pockets of reality themed after some abstract concept. No civilizations or nations, nothing to actually define how the peoples of the setting interact or anything, other than "They're always fighting." Well, that doesn't actually work, because you'd run out of people.

Oh, and after Chaos devoured an entire world because Sigmar and all these heroes he resurrected failed, we hear that Sigmar failed to stop Chaos at some point with these realms and had to run away to build a secret army, but for some reason Chaos doesn't completely wipe out everything again. And now Sigmar's back, from outer space, and he finds them with a sad look upon their face... Wait, hold on. I mean, he bashes in and starts retaking realm gates, which are important because someone said so, and apparently you can only move between realms if you have control of these gates, but in the fluff the good guys only have control one or two, so it's impossible to move between the other realms, which means that you can't explain different races fighting each other (never mind that the fluff suggests that they wouldn't).

Wow. There's even less reason and less backing in the fluff for most of the armies to fight each other. Progress!

So, the future of the story is... what? That Sigmar starts kicking Chaos out of all the lands? We've seen this setting's darkest hour, and in that moment, Chaos couldn't win. All that's left is the good guys continuously winning. There's no real threat. We've been shown, already, in 96 pages, that there is no threat. But who would even be threatened? There's not any nations or civilizations, just ill-defined vague concepts of "people" who exist only to fight unending war.

Hmm. Ill-defined concepts of people, ill-defined "realms" that are vague themes, all of the main people Sigmar fought with/against are back, Sigmar is the savior of the realms and fights with a holy necromantic army, and it's the Age of Sigmar... Oh my God. I just realized. Sigmar never woke up. He's still hurtling through space and we're playing around in some dream he's concocted to get over the fact he lost it all. His mind is creating lands and people that don't need to work, because they're not real. He's bringing back all the major people he knew at the end of his life. He's setting up the same End Times scenario, but this time with himself being some Ultimate Cosmic Savior who can beat back the Chaos gods. He even worked up a whole history that involves betrayal, much like what happened during the End Times.

Suddenly it makes sense. The reason this setting is so devoid of detail and life and can't work is because it doesn't have to, it's all in the mind of some guy floating in space suffering from severe PTSD.

Mind blown.

Katharon

07-22-2015, 08:22 AM

Gods and moresuperawesome powers of doom everywhere. Makes it as boring as them gameplay itself for me.

This is one of the biggest caveats for me. My Empire army that I crafted over the years had characters I created, from named company commanders like Josef 'Giant Balls' Hef (who is so called because he always managed to land a last wound to a giant, repeatedly, over several games) who led my Great Swords, or my Master Engineer Fritz 'the Blitz' Fitzgerald (who desperately thought the army needed *more* black powder weaponry). If they died, either in a normal game or a campaign, I genuinely cared and would feel a little sad that they hadn't made it through that particular story.

Now with every Stormcast being brought back by the Dragon Balls, I feel like there's no impact to their deaths. Sure, they lose some of their memories (I've watched Log Horizon, and they do it better), but there isn't the same impact for me.

Cutter

07-22-2015, 08:40 AM

Lord Celestant on Dracosath for example.

The Stormcast Eternals are described as mean mother****ers who when under the right command will fight to the death. The Lord Celestant's Command Ability makes all Stormcast Eternals within 24" immune to Battleshock tests. Without this rule, the preceding fluff text would be so light as to it carrying no meaning, no gravity. The rule instead reinforces the fluff.

Example of the opposite. Tactical Marines are described as some of the meanest and most versatile mother****ers around, yet nothing in their rules support this when on the table and compared to the cost you pay for them, they are rather subpar when compared to equivalent points elsewhere.

I've got you, ta.

Path Walker

07-22-2015, 08:45 AM

blah blah blah.

I thought you had the book now? If you'd read it you'd answer all your own questions.

Charistoph

07-22-2015, 09:39 AM

This is one of the biggest caveats for me. My Empire army that I crafted over the years had characters I created, from named company commanders like Josef 'Giant Balls' Hef (who is so called because he always managed to land a last wound to a giant, repeatedly, over several games) who led my Great Swords, or my Master Engineer Fritz 'the Blitz' Fitzgerald (who desperately thought the army needed *more* black powder weaponry). If they died, either in a normal game or a campaign, I genuinely cared and would feel a little sad that they hadn't made it through that particular story.

Now with every Stormcast being brought back by the Dragon Balls, I feel like there's no impact to their deaths. Sure, they lose some of their memories (I've watched Log Horizon, and they do it better), but there isn't the same impact for me.

Who said that you have to play Stormcast? Why can't your army still be who they are, Free People fighting to save their/another city/Realm from Chaos/Destruction? There are plenty of Humans across at least half of the Realms that fight in puff and slash and one is bound to have some "big balls".

Path Walker

07-22-2015, 09:44 AM

And, if you like 8th edition WFB (or any other edition), you can still play that, you can still play out the adventures of Josef 'Giant Balls' Hef as well now as you could last month

Erik Setzer

07-22-2015, 09:47 AM

Who said that you have to play Stormcast? Why can't your army still be who they are, Free People fighting to save their/another city/Realm from Chaos/Destruction? There are plenty of Humans across at least half of the Realms that fight in puff and slash and one is bound to have some "big balls".

Oh? Can you give examples of these cities? Or any particular named region that has some background to it that a person might build the background of their force upon? Or does someone have to make up a city in order to have one to fight for, because no such cities exist in the fluff?

Path Walker

07-22-2015, 09:51 AM

Townlandia is on the Metropolitan Peninsula in the Realm of Cities.

Muninwing

07-22-2015, 10:41 AM

i'm a bit wordy... perhaps that should have been 2-3 posts.

that being said, i think this quote sums up one of the issues:

"Your commentary about how many minis you have bought in the last 5 years, for me, proves something - that you are not the target demographic.

AoS is about bringing in new blood and countering several criticisms about the problems of entr to WFB - cost and complexity. AoS has completely wiped those arguments away."

i personally don't think that the argument was ever valid.

barrier to entry became a smaller problem because GW pushed for the supremacy of large-block infantry. that wasn't a necessity in earlier editions. but even then, pushing for (a) a competent skirmish system instead of killing off Mordheim, and (b) a fun way of playing small-scale games could have saved that.

the average new player does not need a 3000 point army.

the average new player -- and i mean really new, starting the whole game from scratch, not just starting a new army -- will buy some core choices, a hero, and maybe something special or rare. and they will assemble and paint them. and they will play against their friends or locals. around here, they cannot go to the GW store, because all of them northeast of NYC have been closed (even the Boston battle bunker).

the average new player will be ok with a PS2's cost worth of models, for quite a while.

it's the army-expanders, the ADD-hobbyist, the pokemon player who has to have one of everything that they want to court, the loyal fan who would totally start a mechanicus army despite having 5000 points of IG, the Ork player who has always wanted to try out tyranids, the fan who lovingly crafted 4000 points of state troops, and wants to try out his or her hand at painting bretonnian heraldry.

look what GW has done, despite their "we're a models company, not a game company" line, to actively lessen that end of the hobby:

- the old White Dwarf had Golden Daemon pics, armies on parade, beginner and expert painting and crafting tutorials, and all sorts of hobbyist resources. i actually took my old copies and cut out the useful pages to punch and put in a binder, and it's amazing how the content dropped off. now instead of buying a WD for a neat painting scheme, i'll look it up for free on the internet. personally, i'd still rather have the hard copy in case that webpage were to disappear.

- the old business model had a crew of redshirts to rely on. if one was bad, there were three more who were hopefully better. they also could teach each other. they also could specialize -- one loremaster, one rulesmaster, one brushmaster, one parent-contact, and one well-seasoned oldtimer could handle pretty much all the needs of their customers. now, one-person stores and unreliable access, and stores closing, and fewer specialists.

- the old GW supported their product on all levels, from the beginner (with starter sets and clinics) to intermediate (with open tables and question ability), to competitive (with their own tournaments as well as prize support).then they just stopped.

- the old GW provided a wide array of bits to customize armies with, and supported those customizations with "counts as" rules and with public displays (in store as well as in WD) of the more interesting conversions. this has always been a decided advantage over WM/H and other games, since the converter/kitbasher has the ability to craft and personalize. but then this too just stopped.

we don't need to go into the whys and wherefores as to their stopping and changing. some of it was necessary, some if it was failed gambles, some of it was just lack of cohesiveness and leadership and forethought. but comparing a decade ago to now means looking at how GW has systematically pulled out of all the support roles that have kept them in the #1 position, while wondering why their numbers have slipped.

if the rules were fun and interesting, but the game not so radically different that it may as well be something else, and they still offered the same level of creative allure, we'd see more people starting new armies. if there were not such widely disparate levels of power for points in different books, or arbitrary changes, we'd have seen fewer people shelf their armies -- but as of 8th i have no reason to finish my Dragon Ogres, my Nurgle Minotaurs, or my wolf-centigors given different army changes... and my friend with the all-tzeentch army just put it in a case when his lat army book came out. they lost fans and players a lot through lack of support on the game end too.

when 40k 6th came out, i started playing again. i had fun with a new army project, and i began to enjoy myself again. when WHF 8th came out, i'd been trying to wrap my head around a new subpar army book, and had to do the same with the rule changes. it caused me to just give up, and play something else. i was hoping 9th would give me a new fresher look at things, and i'd start playing again, but that's clearly not on the table. so my armies go back into their cases, and maybe i can take them out in a few years if AoS fails and they backpedal.

Muninwing

07-22-2015, 10:54 AM

And, if you like 8th edition WFB (or any other edition), you can still play that, you can still play out the adventures of Josef 'Giant Balls' Hef as well now as you could last month

... if you can find someone willing to play
... if you can find a store selling the old models you might want to expand with
... if the local store lets you (some are oddly firm on the "no old games" rules, if they are concerned about their role as supplier)
... if you never want to see any change or expansion of the rules and the fluff and the plot and the opponents and your on army

it's like saying that you can totally still use an old analog rotary phone instead of updating to touchtone or cell. you can. it's just a lot of pain in the butt and frustration and the inability to do certain things over the phone. at that point, you have to assess whether it's worth it.

ColeVVatkins

07-22-2015, 11:01 AM

In the 8th I would just run doomwheel and abom's until you converted to Age of Sigmar!

Muninwing

07-22-2015, 11:06 AM

So we have these ill-defined "realms" which are really just pockets of reality themed after some abstract concept. No civilizations or nations, nothing to actually define how the peoples of the setting interact or anything, other than "They're always fighting." Well, that doesn't actually work, because you'd run out of people.

Hmm. Ill-defined concepts of people, ill-defined "realms" that are vague themes, all of the main people Sigmar fought with/against are back, Sigmar is the savior of the realms and fights with a holy necromantic army, and it's the Age of Sigmar...

i love your PTSD Timmy Westphall theory, but the only reason it can exist is because they have done such a terrible job creating what exactly the new realm is like.

lower on that way-too-long original post, i had mentioned that fairly early on (and perhaps before the box set and rules release) they should have done an Atlas of the new Planes, a sourcebook with the fluff and the story as a follow-up to the End Times. in addition to clarifying the new world, and proving that they have a long-term plan (which i am seriously doubting -- their release botch and the rumors/changes show they have not necessarily thought this all through), it would also start to enrich this new world and get players who love lore to buy in.

- - - Updated - - -

In the 8th I would just run doomwheel and abom's until you converted to Age of Sigmar!

.... and that's why i stopped playing. as riddled with errors as the skaven book was, it was dramatically overpowered as compared to my beasts. but we were using the same points scale to set up battles, meaning that someone did their job wrong and i had to pay the price for it.

Muninwing

07-22-2015, 11:30 AM

Holy ****! That's a lot of words used to describe an incredibly bad idea.

This whole process might be what you WANT and it's the last thing you, and the players both old and new, NEEDS!.

A game, and its players, NEEDS rules that works, which AoS does, that creates awesome imagery in the mindscape, which AoS does. The last thing they need is to know the deep seated motivation for each and every model on the table, their fears, their anguish and miles and miles of existential angst.

A game exists to be played. Fluff can never add gravity to the rules, which is the important part. However rules can add gravity to the fluff.

while exaggerating my point of view is interesting, it's not in any way relevant to this argument.

what players need are good rules. this we agree on. in 7th, and into 8th, (and through the second half of 5th in 40k) GW stopped makign those in favor of exaggerating certain armies' capabilities. there are many perspectives on this, but mostly i just blame Mat Ward and no cohesive leadership from above, and i'm done with it. but it drove away a ton of players.

the game went for what -- six editions? before named special characters were allowed in regular play. why? because SCs and the rules needed to make them as epic as they need to be to match their fluff end up adding more opportunities to break the game, or to overpower one army. in contrast, you could paint up your Blood Dragon general to look like the Lord of Mousillon, and use ghostly bretonnians as Black Knights with thematic livery, but still use the brettonian paladin" or "blood dragon vampire" rules. suddenly being able to field a horde of Von Carsteins with special rules and special weapons and the like just cheaply borrows from others rather than adding anything personal, like rand paul's speeches or like fanfiction.

WM/H force a pensive player to imagine what those two generals from Khador feel like, as veterans of the million border skirmishes that never erupted into all-out war and sometimes are against each other or themselves. having "Rank II Warcaster" as an option with some minor customization rules would make their game far less "look at how awesome my D&D character is" and more like an actual fleshed-out world.

to respond to the part of your argument that is relevant, i'd like to point out that if gamers want good rules, it would make sense to give them good rules. if WHF was always the advanced model from 40k, with more tactics and a greater spectrum of learning in order to become good at the game, arbitrarily making it immensely simplistic is an outright break with what their fans have looked to them for.

instead of creating a whole new game that pretty much has nothing to do with the old one, why not create a new edition of the same game with fixes to all the problems, adapted rules for larger and smaller play, and a fully-realized world that makes sense?

or why not just reboot the game, a la ultimate marvel, or new 52? keep some of the themes and ideas, but approach it differently. same with the game itself -- and embed a real reason to want to play the game on both a larger and a smaller scale.

the weakly defined "realms," the increased importance of all these named characters, the lack of background and fluff and raison d'etre and purpose, the wealth of rumors that they allowed to circulate about WHF9 -- it's all stacked against the new game for veterans before we even open the rules. the old stuff created "awesome imagery in the mindscape" far better than the trite, hollow dumbing-down that they have offered up to us. the new stuff is like they hired middle schoolers to write their fluff.

ColeVVatkins

07-22-2015, 11:39 AM

- - - Updated - - -

.... and that's why i stopped playing. as riddled with errors as the skaven book was, it was dramatically overpowered as compared to my beasts. but we were using the same points scale to set up battles, meaning that someone did their job wrong and i had to pay the price for it.

It wasn't much fun for my opponents... So I didn't abuse them. Not gonna lie... That lightning was amazing. Don't know if anyone has read doomwheel now... It's unplayable. :-(

nsc

07-22-2015, 11:54 AM

Erik Setzer

07-22-2015, 11:59 AM

It wasn't much fun for my opponents... So I didn't abuse them. Not gonna lie... That lightning was amazing. Don't know if anyone has read doomwheel now... It's unplayable. :-(

The Doomwheel is... seriously nerfed. And for something that enjoyed blowing up on me repeatedly, I'm not sure it needed that bad a nerfing.

Quaade

07-22-2015, 12:01 PM

[loads of irrelevant text]

to respond to the part of your argument that is relevant, i'd like to point out that if gamers want good rules, it would make sense to give them good rules. if WHF was always the advanced model from 40k, with more tactics and a greater spectrum of learning in order to become good at the game, arbitrarily making it immensely simplistic is an outright break with what their fans have looked to them for.
instead of creating a whole new game that pretty much has nothing to do with the old one, why not create a new edition of the same game with fixes to all the problems, adapted rules for larger and smaller play, and a fully-realized world that makes sense?
That's your argument. My argument is that AoS provides solid rules that are a lot deeper than they appear on the surface. Easy to learn, hard to master. It's a different game and right now it seems you want it to be 9th edition, which would had been more money out the window for GW in order to appease a dwindling, entitled playerbase. Blowing up an established franchise is never done on a whim, there's always a reason and usually it's that it's a moneysink.

or why not just reboot the game, a la ultimate marvel, or new 52? keep some of the themes and ideas, but approach it differently. same with the game itself -- and embed a real reason to want to play the game on both a larger and a smaller scale.
Marvel is ending the Ultimate universe and melting the good parts into the mainstream Marvel Universe. Their reason, only one title was really popular and the mythology had become increasingly complex for new readers to enter. So one Battleworld event later and it will be gone.

the weakly defined "realms," the increased importance of all these named characters, the lack of background and fluff and raison d'etre and purpose, the wealth of rumors that they allowed to circulate about WHF9 -- it's all stacked against the new game for veterans before we even open the rules. the old stuff created "awesome imagery in the mindscape" far better than the trite, hollow dumbing-down that they have offered up to us. the new stuff is like they hired middle schoolers to write their fluff.
You just mentioned the Ultimate universe and then you use this argument? Your cognitive dissonance is impressive and I do believe you're in a state of crisis over this whole affair.

Weakly defined realms allows for both new and old players to explore this new setting at the pace GW releases the books. The named character, other than the main eight Incarnates and a few select, are only there for purposes of being able to play with them, they have no influence on the fluff at all.

Vlad78

07-22-2015, 12:31 PM

Mr Mystery

07-22-2015, 01:11 PM

What, am I John Snow now? :p

Got those books, and it's certainly interesting reading about the Empire - but stuff that early on doesn't particularly resemble the Warhammer that just passed. If I'm right in thinking, for Silver Nails, Beasts in Velvet and Drachenfels, Karl Franz isn't Emperor yet, just a kid.

The world wasn't going anywhere. Unlike 40k, we only had the one planet to set stuff in, inherently limiting what could happen.

Now? Seemingly expansive realms, and possibly more to come.

What we have now is just the beginning - far, far too early to go saying it's rubbish. To date, we have Sigmar's opening gambit to start pushing back the forces of Chaos. Who knows what is to follow?

40kGamer

07-22-2015, 01:18 PM

There is no substance because AoS is a full reboot of a dying game system. To accomplish this they jumped ahead millennia to this current setting to give themselves breathing room and the foundation to do whatever they want creatively. Which from a design standpoint is quite clever. Now we have the same type of universe as 40k where there was the world of WFB in the distant past and there is the realms of the AoS. They've even left themselves room to go back through this time period to flesh out story, settings and campaigns as they see fit... read as potentially profitable. ;)

So while the rules aren't all that deep at the moment, it's a good time to try and bring new people into the system to 'learn as it grows'. I actually think that if this goes well we will see a "War of the Ring' style rules supplement that brings back movement trays and ranked up units.

However all is not cute and fuzzy bunnies as I'm not 100% on board with the new balance it yourselves mentality and I truly loathe the mechanic of measuring from the model vs the base. Regardless, I think it's going to be interesting if not fun to see where this goes and if they can make it work. The proof is in the 'annual stock report' pudding so to speak.

- - - Updated - - -

What, am I John Snow now? :p

Bloody noob. ;)

Mr Mystery

07-22-2015, 01:25 PM

Wouldn't mind being John Snow like, would mean some interest from redheads!

As for measurements etc - do as you want! As long as both players agree in a given game, makes no difference.

Erik Setzer

07-22-2015, 01:35 PM

40K fluff is exactly where it's been for years. Sometimes things get a little jumbled and they retcon stuff or something. But Armageddon is a stalemate, the Eye of Terror campaign got stripped back, everything is exactly where it was 20 years ago. They added some new races, but those races haven't really changed the dynamic of the universe or the story.

"Expansive realms" is funny, that only works because they haven't defined what the heck a realm is. It's a vague concept of an area.

And just because fighting can happen in more places doesn't make the setting more interesting or alive. The reality is that we've already established there are no stakes in this setting. Chaos "won" but couldn't get the final victory. Now it's just Sigmar winning from here on out. Even if there were people to care about, it wouldn't matter, because for some reason Chaos became as harmful as a pack of Care Bears.

40kGamer

07-22-2015, 01:37 PM

Wouldn't mind being John Snow like, would mean some interest from redheads!

As for measurements etc - do as you want! As long as both players agree in a given game, makes no difference.

Yes sir... measuring from the base was ruled in almost immediately locally. It just makes the other mechanics easier to deal with and lets you position your models without concern for which way the pokey parts stick out.

Mr Mystery

07-22-2015, 01:37 PM

Erik - you act as if the background is complete. Which we know is not the case.

40kGamer

07-22-2015, 01:40 PM

Erik - you act as if the background is complete. Which we know is not the case.

*Sigh* Is everyone too young to remember the lack of backstory for 40k and WFB when they started back in the Dark Age of gaming? If you read the fluff from Adeptus Titanicus it is thin, really thin, and most of it has changed dramatically over the years as they filled it out.

Mr Mystery

07-22-2015, 01:42 PM

I really liked the background in Codex Titanicus, spesh the Eldar stuff.

40kGamer

07-22-2015, 01:54 PM

Yeah, I love the Eldar Titan Clans.... reminds me a lot of the modern Aspect Temples. That's how I'm going to play them too. Any clan may have a presence on any Craftworld.

I seriously don't know how anyone expects AoS to have a fully fleshed out backstory within a couple weeks of hitting the shelves.

Caitsidhe

07-22-2015, 02:22 PM

I think it would have been simpler to just say the rules are terrible, the backstory rivals He-Man for silliness, and the prospects for either improving are somewhat dim. That would have covered it. I have no doubt they will expand on the backstory but the foundation is rotten. As Uther found out, you can't build a castle on a swamp.

Mr Mystery

07-22-2015, 02:23 PM

That's nice petal.

Lexington

07-22-2015, 02:26 PM

Now with every Stormcast being brought back by the Dragon Balls, I feel like there's no impact to their deaths. Sure, they lose some of their memories (I've watched Log Horizon, and they do it better), but there isn't the same impact for me.
Yeah, this. For a setting that's supposed to be so broad and all-encompassing, the AoS universe doesn't seem to be the sort of place where you could write about, say, the odd friendship between a human and a dwarf as they seek the latter's grand doom. Looked at from that angle, AoS seems like a very small place, with very few stories to tell.

Mr Mystery

07-22-2015, 02:29 PM

Again, extremely early days.

Age of Sigmar has opened with Sigmar going on the offensive.

We know there are still mortals kicking about, and that they are taking up arms as well. And right now, that's about it.

Who knows what's going to happen once/if Chaos is forced back? Seems a reasonable expectation that the various civilisations will begin to prosper once more, opening up the sort of 'One Dwarf and his Manling' stuff we're used to.

But right now, it's the foundation being set.

Caitsidhe

07-22-2015, 02:43 PM

Stepping away fro the Saturday Morning Cartoon fluff issues I'd rather look at a key component of what I don't like about AOS. It is, in fact, the SAME rotten component of the last edition of WHFB. It is the rise of the "random" whereby all the real strategy and tactics are minimized and removed from the game. I recall (and I commented at length about this back when it happened) how unhappy I was that WHFB had just increased the random element of the game off the charts with its silly new magic which just shifted the entire game from turn to turn. That was the biggest one, although there were other rules which increased the random factor as well. I predicted (accurately as it turned out) that WHFB was going to tank because players (the vast majority of them) actually do want to have more effect on the outcome of the game than fate. There will always be chance in games like these, but the key thing is that we want to believe our destinies are in our own hands. We win or lose based on our own merits. I got shouted down at the time. I was called a "win at all cost" type. I was assured that the last edition of WHFB was the best thing to happen to the game in twenty years. EVERYONE loves it. Right. I said simply that if the game's rules are inferior there can be now growth or retention. I said that buying models alone will NOT support the game.

Fast forward to AOS. Now the apologists (many of the same people who told me how wrong I was) are insisting that the move to this game was necessary for GW because nobody was buying WHFB. There needed to be new blood brought into the game. Of course, they still will not admit the root cause of their problem. In fact, they have doubled down AGAIN on the random. Let me assure you, as someone who has already played far more of AOS than I had the desire, that the outcome of most games is entirely random. It has truly become Candy Land for adults. I used to make that accusation against the previous edition (and it was fair) but AOS is the incarnate of that statement. The problem, again, that GW faces is it treats its customers like morons. It assumes we never grew out of the stage where we hit a spinner and are just entertained by moving things around. They seem unwilling to accept that we recognize (some of us consciously and some unconsciously) that our input to the game is largely irrelevant. GW seems convinced that good models alone will somehow support the game. I suppose for those at the top of the company, to admit otherwise would be the same as admitting they have screwed the pooh the last 6-8 years. I suppose until those people are truly removed, there is little hope in a course correction.

I suppose the most irritating thing is that even if GW was played primarily by the age group GW says it targets (it is not) kids today are far more sophisticated than this. They don't want to be playing a baby game either. They don't take long to figure out how little input they have. So who the hell is this nightmare actually intended to win over? :D

ColeVVatkins

07-22-2015, 02:44 PM

40kGamer

07-22-2015, 02:48 PM

The young are impatient. Wait... I'm impatient when I have to wait a year for game of thrones :-P

:D Waiting is definitely beaten into us over the years. I've been waiting 20+ years to see Batman and Superman on screen together.

ColeVVatkins

07-22-2015, 02:50 PM

I suppose the most irritating thing is that even if GW was played primarily by the age group GW says it targets (it is not) kids today are far more sophisticated than this. They don't want to be playing a baby game either. They don't take long to figure out how little input they have. So who the hell is this nightmare actually intended to win over? :D

I thought gw said they are focusing on 40k players...

- - - Updated - - -

:D Waiting is definitely beaten into us over the years. I've been waiting 20+ years to see Batman and Superman on screen together.

What comic book fan hasn't been waiting that long!?
Kids now days can just Google anything! I mean I do that now also... But in the 90s... What is skaven? I had to wait... It was great... It was exciting...

40kGamer

07-22-2015, 02:50 PM

It is the rise of the "random" whereby all the real strategy and tactics are minimized and removed from the game. I recall (and I commented at length about this back when it happened) how unhappy I was that WHFB had just increased the random element of the game off the charts with its silly new magic which just shifted the entire game from turn to turn. That was the biggest one, although there were other rules which increased the random factor as well.

The rise of the 'random' game mechanics has really irritated me with 40k as well. I think it's a backwards attempt to balance out poorly functioning game mechanics. ie... so your opponents army is definitely going to stomp you due to unequal builds? Never fear, random outcomes is here!

Caitsidhe

07-22-2015, 02:51 PM

I thought gw said they are focusing on 40k players...

The only 40K players this is gong to attract long term are those who use some of the models to kitbash custom models for the other game. :D They have largely made 40K random now too, and I expect exactly the same progression for 40K, i.e. into the toilet followed by End Times and an AOS-like reboot. This is because to go the other direction would be the same as admitting the last edition and all the recent changes failed. Consider their horror in having to admit that they ARE (or at least were) a game company and that competitive play was an important (perhaps the driving) part of their business.

40kGamer

07-22-2015, 02:52 PM

What comic book fan hasn't been waiting that long!?
Kids now days can just Google anything! I mean I do that now also... But in the 90s... What is skaven? I had to wait... It was great... It was exciting...

There was definitely a stronger sense of anticipation and a greater effort required to research things in the pre-google days. I know my sense of excitement and wonder have taken a hit with the rise of easy information and the noise of a million opinions. :)

ColeVVatkins

07-22-2015, 02:59 PM

Caitsidhe

07-22-2015, 03:01 PM

ColeVVatkins

07-22-2015, 03:19 PM

I can honestly say I enjoy the game... Sometimes less is better(rules)

Caitsidhe

07-22-2015, 03:31 PM

I can honestly say I enjoy the game... Sometimes less is better(rules)

To each their own. :D The question is whether or not there are enough of you to support the game. From what I'm seeing, there are not.

ColeVVatkins

07-22-2015, 03:36 PM

To each their own. :D The question is whether or not there are enough of you to support the game. From what I'm seeing, there are not.

Sadly I agree... But there weren't enough of us whfb either... :-(

Caitsidhe

07-22-2015, 03:48 PM

Sadly I agree... But there weren't enough of us whfb either... :-(

Exactly. The problem with crappy, random rules is that they disenfranchise 50%+ (I'd argue 75%) of the player base. Good rules work equally well for competitive and casual types. Thus, it is insane to not come up with rules as tight as the models.

ColeVVatkins

07-22-2015, 04:34 PM

I did read that these are the start of the rules... Just to get peoples feet wet... More to come... I'm hoping that it is true.

Caitsidhe

07-22-2015, 05:14 PM

I did read that these are the start of the rules... Just to get peoples feet wet... More to come... I'm hoping that it is true.

Perhaps but I wouldn't hold your breath. Games Workshop seems to be under the delusion that they can use the Magic the Gathering business model, i.e. basic rules almost nothing with EVERYTHING else based on the models/warscrolls. The problem with this is Games Workshop doesn't seem to be able to wrap their head around the fact that Magic the Gathering uses paper-cuts to make its money. Individual purchases are extremely inexpensive and thus people are more comfortable with the ever changing cycles of cards. With neither the basic game nor the models moving, the only way to try and up profits (because they will refuse to lower their prices) is to try and cash in on rules/power releases.

Muninwing

07-22-2015, 06:42 PM

I'm a little curious as to why people are saying there's no threat, no weight to the AoS storyline, when there's more than ever before!

The boxed set for AoS is set an unknown number of years (vaguely referenced as hundreds) after chaos has conquered 7 of the 8 realms, and has spent all this time wallowing in well chaos, those who aren't pawns of the dark gods are hunted and hassled endlessly in this time, before the Chaos gods turned their eyes to the realms there was an unknown number of years (again vaguely referenced as hundreds) where seven realms (the 8th realm is chaos, I think it's safe to assume nobody was in there lol) were populated by all the races familiar to the WHFB setting and empires and nations were built and raised up.

Now, I know I ambled on about the context of the setting but it's part of my point about the threat. Sigmar is striking out from the 1st (or 8th depending on your perspective) realm and seeks to destroy Chaos. The threat of Chaos is even more terrifying than before, the 'good' guys are striking out against Chaos at its most powerful, with alliances that have been broken and betrayed. This is it, if these celestial warriors are halted, if those who would live in order do not crush Chaos in this long bloody campaign then all will be lost! The dark gods know that Sigmar did not cower in his realm, that he built up heroes taken from the history of the realms and equipped them with his finest weapons. This is sigmar playing his ace in the hole and if it doesn't work, or if they are fought to a stalemate, then things will be quite grim indeed!

ok. that's one.

one.

by externalizing chaos, they have ended multiple threats. it always was an omnipresent danger, a subtle seductive lure to descent too far into the worst parts of primal emotion... a proud warrior begin to love what he does, a scholar dig too deep, a common man beset by tragedy just give in to despair, a desire become too bestial, and the chaos gods were there waiting to snap you up. there were the viking-esque northern raiders, sure, but chaos was just as dangerous from the inside.

now we have Sigmar-Jesus waging holy war from one of two defined locations (all those " there were realms but they are gone" are not history and have no weight except us being told they already happened).

it's very one-note.

the second rule of creative writing classes, after "the unassailable is the uninteresting," is "show, don't tell." and i could care less that SigJesus the 21st primarch of heaven has descended from his throne of farts to poop out demigod armor, or whatever similar highly contrived device they've come up with to magically invent a "good guy" to sell to overworried parents.

i just don't care. chaos already won once, they'll win again unless the anti-buddha and his hammer can learn from his mistakes and kill claudius or not strangle his wife... oh, wait, that would be too much development of character and plot.

now... give me detailed information on why the other races of old have lost their senses of self. give me a new set of magical fairy twins who compliment each other, but give them both flaws and rivalries instead of just being superelven. give me conflict in the halls of the dead, where Nagash is rent limb from limb (or bone from bone) by his trusted lieutenants and his pieces split up for fueling the engines of corpses, that they might challenge Tzeentch for his throne. even just give the legends of the heroes who snuck into Slaanesh's palace and nearly sacrificed themselves in order to lure he/she out so that another aspiring hero (because if the same ten people do everything in a world-sized environment, it's phenomenally stupid) could trap him/her in a magic dwarven-made bottle... but have that bottle be stolen by a brigand, sold to the ogres, and used in a ritual to bring back the Great Maw. by a new name in the world, not just Skrag or Greasus (who should both be dead by now).

give me the story of the brayherd who shattered the heart of the second realm. give me the story of the Dwarf who bargained with SIgmar to teach him to craft the Stormcast, winning in exchange the threads of the wind and the sound of the mountain sleeping, and hint that he used them for something important later... but never elaborate on it... just place indications that in the secret city of dwarves at the heart of the world there is a Great Undertaking that even the dwarves do not understand, nor do they know where the idea is coming from when it possesses their elite craftmasters. give me the story of the human child found by the elves, who taught Morathi about the power of innocent love... or who hides in phoenix armor as a silent guard, having given up his humanity in order to lend his strength to his homeland. tell the story of the City of Mazes on the sixth realm, that Tzeentch conquered on a bet with Nurgle, through nothing but whispering madness to its architects who built impossible monuments that drove mad all who looked at them for too long.

or... don't. give us one overhyped, trite, hollow, second-verse conflict without a single reason to care about the history of the place past wondering where it all went.

it's lazy.

Muninwing

07-22-2015, 07:03 PM

I can honestly say I enjoy the game... Sometimes less is better(rules)

if i want less, i'll play a different game. WHF was the game to go to because you wanted a large-scale strategy and tactics game involving all the element of early wargames but expanding into a broader and more varied world of fantasy tropes.

"less" means that they are short games, with few models, and the tactics are reduced to tricks but are still more important than the strategy. having learned how to bait frenzied units with warhounds, master maneuvering for a flankcharge, and fake-out an opponent with a line-breaking combocharge, it means all of the most enjoyable aspects of the game are now either randomized or just no longer a part of the game.

it really is like they copied the worst parts of WM/H and left everything blank just so they could have excuses for not fleshing anything at all out.

i will say that i don't expect an immediately full world, flush with eras worth of history and maps for every realm. but... what's a realm? how were they set up? why were the various races now changed? why is a more powerful chaos not going to just win again? what is the general feel of the still-accessible realms that are no longer relevant due to chaos just eating them too? think of the basics that even armybooks had in 6th-7th... maps, years of new history, connections to other races, aesthetics and ideologies and racial divides. and each one added a certain amount to the ones before... but the AoS starter has not even come with enough of an idea to fill this new blank world with as much as most of those armyboks did for their own army.

strive for simplicity and you lose detail and intricacy.

Muninwing

07-22-2015, 07:43 PM

That's your argument. My argument is that AoS provides solid rules that are a lot deeper than they appear on the surface. Easy to learn, hard to master. It's a different game and right now it seems you want it to be 9th edition, which would had been more money out the window for GW in order to appease a dwindling, entitled playerbase. Blowing up an established franchise is never done on a whim, there's always a reason and usually it's that it's a moneysink.

ah, dismissive condescension...from some nameless person on the internet? never.

look, i'll be honest. i'd have un-mothballed my armies for WHF 9th, and seen if it was better than 8th. i also would have looked to find a set of not-stupid but not-weak rules if i did enjoy it and maybe sunk money into a new army... or maybe just expanded one of the ones i already have. it's still money to GW.

instead, i saw months of rumors about what WHF9 was going to be like, and what the new skirmish game companion was going to be like. then, rather abruptly, there was only one and it was the one i'd be less likely to play. not a good tactic on GW's part. so maybe, yeah, i did want WHF9... i'm not the only one. and i'll freely admit that the feeling of that (and every reason i have liked the system for over a decade) being pulled out from under me in favor of something so incomplete and so outside of the hole they were trying to fill is coloring much of my reaction.

but my original comments still stand. they have not created any gravity, any reason for me to even look at my bias in order to change my perspective. and they have not created anything yet that is compelling.

and back in what someone else referred to as "the dark age of gaming" that might have been acceptable. but now, with other fleshed-out products in competition, to drop the ball as they have by counting on brand loyalty instead of offering a comparable product is just plain foolish.

blowing up an established franchise is always a gamble. so why make it more of one and alienate people immediately?

Marvel is ending the Ultimate universe and melting the good parts into the mainstream Marvel Universe. Their reason, only one title was really popular and the mythology had become increasingly complex for new readers to enter. So one Battleworld event later and it will be gone.

if Marvel realized that it had really gotten stale, and rebooted everything into Ultimate... and ended the old lines... then it would have been a different story. note though that you say they've incorporated many of the better ideas from the fresh reimaging of their old product and incorporated them into the main line.

that's what you can do, when you shrug off the old bonds. but that's not exactly what they did here. instead of creating a reboot, they introduced a product with essentially no background or fluff past "chaos is coming, don't forget your hat... and jesus magically makes robot angels to fight bad people."

You just mentioned the Ultimate universe and then you use this argument? Your cognitive dissonance is impressive and I do believe you're in a state of crisis over this whole affair.

Weakly defined realms allows for both new and old players to explore this new setting at the pace GW releases the books. The named character, other than the main eight Incarnates and a few select, are only there for purposes of being able to play with them, they have no influence on the fluff at all.

see, i don't take your sad insults too seriously, since it's really obvious that you're just missing even the points that aren't way too wordy.

i'll make is simple for you.

if you are creating a new -- and AoS is a new product, completely different from WFB in every way but throwing a bone to their former fanbase and allowing old models some warscrolls -- then you need to have a reason for the customers to care. some people will like the simplification, and some will hate it, meaning that just there you've partially alienated a sizable chunk of those who might have been customers. adding what is essentially no setting is different from just not going into detail yet.

there is one conflict, as far as the current rules show. one. and that's jesus-with-a-hammer against the daemons who ate the last world and 87% of the current poorly-defined (and oops, looks like we don't have to define it now!) cosmology. one map to show how the dwarves and elves and ogres and orks are still crammed in would do wonders to explain the aesthetic of the game.

instead, we get overhyped rumors, and a forgettable game to add to the top of the pile of forgettable skirmish games. it's really too bad that KoW seems a disappointment, because now there are no army-sized fantasy wargames worth playing, and if i'd wanted a WHF skirmish game i could have just played mordheim.

Al Shut

07-23-2015, 03:11 AM

Got those books, and it's certainly interesting reading about the Empire - but stuff that early on doesn't particularly resemble the Warhammer that just passed. If I'm right in thinking, for Silver Nails, Beasts in Velvet and Drachenfels, Karl Franz isn't Emperor yet, just a kid.

I only read Drachenfels but he's definitely emperor in that, maybe your thinking of his own kid that's also in the book.

Katharon

07-23-2015, 04:53 AM

And, if you like 8th edition WFB (or any other edition), you can still play that, you can still play out the adventures of Josef 'Giant Balls' Hef as well now as you could last month

And indeed am. I did post an entire thread three months or more ago titled "I'm sticking with 8th." lol

Erik Setzer

07-23-2015, 05:20 AM

Erik - you act as if the background is complete. Which we know is not the case.

Yeah, that's a wonderful excuse. But they had time to put together some basic background, and we don't even have that. Just a story to try to establish hundreds of years of history that make no sense... unless they really are the figment of Sigmar's PTSD-suffering imagination.

- - - Updated - - -

*Sigh* Is everyone too young to remember the lack of backstory for 40k and WFB when they started back in the Dark Age of gaming? If you read the fluff from Adeptus Titanicus it is thin, really thin, and most of it has changed dramatically over the years as they filled it out.

It explains what the Imperium is, gives information on the various races, actually plenty of stuff, even though it focused on the Imperial civil war. I used to read it constantly. Rogue Trader, similar.

WFB, when it was new, might have had an excuse. But that was a game being designed out of nowhere, not even necessarily as its own setting at first. AoS was designed as its own setting, with plenty of lead-in and time to develop at least a central framework that made sense, and has thirty years of established fluff to ride off of... unless they're just trying to retcon all of that (which it does feel like). So that excuse doesn't fly here.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, extremely early days.

Just wondering... How long will you use that as an excuse? The first five years? Ten years? They released a huge book that they charged $74 for. They've supposedly been working on this for years. And yet they couldn't work in time to come up with, or find a way to squeeze in, something to actually make us care about all the people who can't be slaughtered because Chaos suddenly can't win? And that doesn't answer the point that the existing background doesn't make sense. How long do I have to give a company that threw away a lot of interesting background for this? How long do they get to rewrite what's been written so that it makes sense as something other than Sigmar's Dream World where he gets to be the hero and stomp around with his old pals? Why is it that people can say complimentary things, and you don't say it's too early for them to judge, but if they point out this feels like Michael Bay doing a reboot of the End Times with just as much personality, you jump to say it's too early?

Mr Mystery

07-23-2015, 05:22 AM

Age of Myth.

Sigmar found his fellows survivors - those who had winds of magic bound into them. Uniting them all for the greater good, long period of relative peace and prosperity. Any breaches by Chaos were handled, though they increased in severity over time.

In the end, Nagash's nature got the better of him, and it all went to pot.

Sigmar, knowing a lost cause when he saw one, sealed his realm of Azyr, and laid plans to strike back when the time was right.

Waited until Chaos did what Chaos does - turn on itself. Khorne wanted the final, final victory to be his and his alone, and his warbands set about the other Chaos forces, shattering their unity and dividing their forces, whilst also reducing their number.

During this time, Sigmar and Grungni worked on the Stormcast Eternals, and have now unleashed them.

Sounds much like what we knew about the Horus Heresy prior to BL going into serious depth with the art books and novels, no? Bare outline of events, but little known in terms of specifics.

But yeah. Let's just judge it from a prejudiced position it was always going to be cack, shall we? Because if you expect disappointment, that is all you will ever find.

As for early days?

Well, I imagine it will be a bit longer than say, two weeks? Perhaps 6 months. Depends entirely upon the release schedule and what it contains. Currently, I'm intrigued by the background. It's very different the usual 'two minutes to midnight' in that so far, this is a tale of hope. If you like, the roles are reversed. Chaos is having it's dominance challenged by the interloper. It's Chaos that's on the defensive as a new and powerful foe has entered the fray. Where will it go? What heroes might emerge? I dunno, only way to find out is to keep reading the source material.

Erik Setzer

07-23-2015, 05:33 AM

Ya... Take AoS as an example... Almost all the internet is blasting AoS. But none are willing to try it out.. I have enjoyed every game I have played so far. Only issue I have is the lack of points. My skaven bravery is not holding up well. (60 wounds in units/warscrolls) (10 wounds in heros) Battles I've been playing.

You and others love to make comments like this because it's easier to write us off if you make wild claims that we haven't tried it, rather than accepting that we have and didn't like it. It's making the local GW store unbearable at the moment, because the people who are left still bothering to play it are the most munchkin-esque players... who already had armies and aren't buying new stuff, including the starter box, which means they're not getting new money into the store and to GW.

You're also describing an issue with balance, which is what a lot of people are complaining about, thereby validating the same issues that you're trying to claim aren't there and are only being made up by people who don't play the game. So, what, you don't play now? Or are you having to admit some of the issues are accurate?

- - - Updated - - -

Sadly I agree... But there weren't enough of us whfb either... :-(

I could get a WFB game easier than I can get an AoS game. AoS game seems to have shrank the community, with some people just selling off their armies (but mercifully others wanting to check out KoW before they sell off their stuff).

- - - Updated - - -

But yeah. Let's just judge it from a prejudiced position it was always going to be cack, shall we? Because if you expect disappointment, that is all you will ever find.

You're judging from a prejudiced position that it was always going to be amazing.

What you described doesn't work. If "Chaos always turns on each other," then it shouldn't have succeeded with the End Times. If characters died in End Times to add weight to that story, they shouldn't be back in this story. If Chaos can't ever win, then there's no need for concern, because when the good guys lose a bit, they can just lock themselves away. But what about all the people in the realms left to the mercy of Chaos for centuries? Oh, right, there's no people for them to slaughter in the first place, no nations, no civilizations, nothing to care about.

So yeah, you're just bolstering the point that the story doesn't make sense, especially as a continuation of rather than retcon of story we got in the past few months, and the story shows there's no way to lose so nothing to worry about, and there's no people to care about so no need to worry about leaving them to the predations of Chaos, as they don't exist, so all our fighting is just to have fighting, with a Michael Bay style explanation for why the fighting must happen.

Mr Mystery

07-23-2015, 05:48 AM

Kirsten

07-23-2015, 05:57 AM

I agree with a lot of the original post, and well done on writing that by the way. after 18 years playing Fantasy, I am genuinely upset at the end of so much I have grown up loving. I know a lot of people are saying 'just keep playing 8th' and you certainly can, but the background, the new releases etc. are a big part of the draw. I don't want to keep playing the same game over and over. in many ways I would rather accept it is gone and move on, than keep flogging a dead horse.

Equally, the entirely new element of Age of Sigmar is quite exciting. I want to see where they go with it. I know some people aren't keen on the high fantasy gods and heroes stuff, but then we have only had the Sigmarite releases so far, so that is the only side of it we have seen. if there is still some sort of Empire proxy, or Bretonnian, a human force struggling against massive monsters and magic, that would be a huge draw to me. there could still be a lot of what worked in Warhammer present in Age of Sigmar yet, there will probably still be elves against orcs, goblin armies of silliness, nefarious skaven blowing themselves up. we don't yet know what shape the new game will be. all they have shown us is the new stuff. now we need to see how much of the old stuff makes the journey, and in what shape.

Caitsidhe

07-23-2015, 06:04 AM

Eh. I don't have too huge a beef with the fluff. That is, of course, because I am a Philistine. I've never found the stories or settings to be particularly well written. I'm one of those guys who just plays for the game. When I want good fantasy fiction, Games Workshop is the last place I would turn. That being said, AOS is particularly thin. It reminds me very much of barest pretenses of a story found in cartoons from the 80s like G.I. Joe or He-Man. It seems like the toon factor has been amplified and other aspects purposely reduced or eliminated. In a way, the 80s cartoons seems somehow prophetic. There was also the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles who always fought little chomping robots because the censors wouldn't allow them to use their cutting/stabbing weapons on living people/creatures. Thus the swords could cut robots into bite-sized bits but the Turtles never did anything but kick or punch bad ninjas. :D Do I think this is all in keeping with Games Workshop's delusion that their primary market is for young kids (and the parents who might be horrified by some things)? Sure. Dumb it down, thin it out, and sanitize it just as much as one must while still keeping enough edge not to seem totally lame. I started this post with a nod to the fact that I don't really care about the fluff. That is 100% true. I've read the new stuff, just as I read the old stuff. I wouldn't be commenting on it otherwise. It is bad, lazy writing but ultimately... who cares?

I am a gamer, and in this context I am war-gamer. While I like having really cool looking models to move around the table, little wooden squares and tokens would be just as satisfying if the game were good enough. For me (and I suspect a LARGE number of others) it is our imaginations that are at work. My mind's eye is still far better than any special effects studio or modeling company. The dragon I see rampaging across the battlefield is the real deal. Because I see it in my mind, I really don't have an issue representing with nearly any old thing. A cool dragon model is awesome but kind of beside the point. The game exists for the game's sake. It is an intellectual and creative exercise. We provide the imagination. The rules provide the structure. Chaos and Order joined to produce something elegant and interesting. Of course, if either half of the equation is impaired (crap rules or an unimaginative person) no amount of good looking models, terrain, mood music, lighting, or alcohol is going to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Cutter

07-23-2015, 07:15 AM

I am a gamer, and in this context I am war-gamer. While I like having really cool looking models to move around the table, little wooden squares and tokens would be just as satisfying if the game were good enough.

So you've seen my Zombie Legion b-team?

For me (and I suspect a LARGE number of others) it is our imaginations that are at work. My mind's eye is still far better than any special effects studio or modeling company. The dragon I see rampaging across the battlefield is the real deal. Because I see it in my mind, I really don't have an issue representing with nearly any old thing. A cool dragon model is awesome but kind of beside the point. The game exists for the game's sake. It is an intellectual and creative exercise. We provide the imagination. The rules provide the structure. Chaos and Order joined to produce something elegant and interesting. Of course, if either half of the equation is impaired (crap rules or an unimaginative person) no amount of good looking models, terrain, mood music, lighting, or alcohol is going to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

For some of us, it's the game, for other it seems, it's the tiny fighting men (or fantasy space barbies, to keep some ****ing perpective)

Erik Setzer

07-23-2015, 07:38 AM

Chaos very nearly didn't succeed during End Times. Archaon was out for the count, and Teclis was just about managing as anchor to two winds of magic. It was Mannfredd what ruined it all, like the petulant child he became (I'd always been rather fond of his character before)

But hey, if you don't like the game or the background, fair enough.

Do try to keep your sweeping statements to yourself though. Contrary to your opinion, other people are just as entitled to their take on things, particularly when they too have read the same books.

Chaos would still have won during the Age of Myth. There was no organised resistance to it, no unified front to oppose their predations. Sigmar was aware of this, and that he needed a solid fighting force to turn the tide. Khorne going, well, Khorne was his best chance. Let your enemy weaken itself, then strike as the potential breaking point presents itself.

If you're a Wrestling Fan, think Seth Rollins cashing in his Money in the Bank contract at Wrestlemania, after Brock Lesner and Roman Reins had mullered each other, giving him an embarrassingly easy win in a fight he would otherwise have been flattened in.

See, buddy, YOU need to remember this line yourself:

"Do try to keep your sweeping statements to yourself though. Contrary to your opinion, other people are just as entitled to their take on things, particularly when they too have read the same books."

You get all uppity about people not fawning over AoS, as if we don't have a right to dislike it. You join with the chorus telling us that if we don't think it's perfection, we should keep quiet. It's rather tiring. And then you make comments like the above, which are the height of hypocrisy.

As to your comments on the fluff, let's review:

1. Mannfred committed a betrayal, not Nagash; so Nagash's new "inevitable" betrayal is BS, especially as he knows what it'd cost.
2. If Archaon failed and he was the catalyst of it all, why bring him back for Round 2?
3. So if Archaon dying is what almost messed up their plans, but he's now back and more powerful than before, why is it that they'll always lose because they'll turn on each other? Which is it?

The "Khorne going Khorne" thing is a cop-out. If that's the kind of thing you can expect Khorne to do, it should have been expected when he was ascendant during the End Times. That he didn't seize the chance then should have been a good indication to Sigmar that he couldn't trust it to happen now. It's a shoddy plot device that they've contradicted themselves very recently. It only works - a little - if you pretend all of Warhammer's history, including the End Times, never happened. Otherwise, Sigmar should realize that Khorne won't turn on his allies, because he didn't before when given the chance. And even if he assumed Khorne would suddenly do something that he didn't before, that leaves a lot of people to die. And if Sigmar knew that he could withdraw and not fight and it wouldn't doom most of the "people" in the realms to die, then why even start the initial round of fighting? If a united front is needed, how does he propose to do it now, just by beating people into helping him with his angel necromancy army?

He knew Chaos couldn't win, because of its nature (even though, again, we just saw it do that). So, I have to note again, that means there's no real stakes. He stopped fighting and Chaos still couldn't win. If he's coming back more powerful, that means we know the end game. It's been established already. Even if nations existed to care about, Chaos can't kill them all, because a magical plot barrier is preventing Chaos from winning against no resistance, so why should we buy into the story? Who are we supposed to care about?

You can't start your new fluff by:

- contradicting the fluff you just put out;
- neglecting to include nations and people to care about;
- establishing that, even in the face of no resistance, Chaos can't win, meaning there's no stakes;
- only having two forces, one of which is a caricature of bloodthirsty evil, the other being necromantic angels who can't die and thus have lower stakes in their own battles.

Somewhere in that core, which they had 100 pages to establish, they should have had some reason for us to care about the fighting. They also shouldn't have come right out and said Chaos can't win. If you think Warhammer was stale, how "dynamic" can a game be where you know the outcome the moment it's published?

Muninwing

07-23-2015, 08:42 AM

And yet they couldn't work in time to come up with, or find a way to squeeze in, something to actually make us care about all the people who can't be slaughtered because Chaos suddenly can't win?

but you also neglect the other big lack of consideration...

what if i want chaos to win? they already almost won, so what if i'm rooting for them to finish what they started?

either (a) i have zero reason to care about the new SigJesus, or (b) i'm bored because we already did this, and chaos is even stronger now.

they are counting on tropes that they have not put in the time to establish.

think of Avatar (the cartoon, not the movie). first season was all about a small group of kids escaping WWII Japan's dominant fleet, exploring the rich background, showing that there was more to the story that they hadn't gotten to yet, and making you care about the character's quest. the "underdogs win it" trope comes out of your investment in the characters, it doesn't just happen because we expect it. third season doubled down on this idea, with the tibetan kid and his inuit pals surviving the invasion of china and the implied rape of nanking, and having to penetrate deep into the heart of tokyo to drop an a-bomb of happy accident (via a deus ex machina turtle that had been hinted at for a whole season) on hirohito. tropetastic, tied to the double-fluff of a fully-realized world made richer by its attachment to serious real-world events. it did get there in time, and it had years to develop, which i will admit that AoS did not... but the first episode had more thought-through realized concepts than everything released thus far for AoS. and when they did a sequel series, they did not rest on their laurels -- they built a second fully-realized cosmology that fit seamlessly with the first one, as well as incorporating the concepts from its predecessor.

AoS has more to draw on than a new game should, being a loose sequel. instead, they merely took what was convenient from the End Times, drunkenly wrote down a sketch of how it all mashed together on a bar napkin, and mailed it to their editors. it makes them seem as if they actually have no overarcing plan, which is worrisome.

remember, too, that Ulthulan is the UK, and Naggaroth is the US... that Nagash is the Ottoman empire and the conflicts in the middle east, chaos might seem like scandinavia (and be tied to the viking raiders) but doubles as an allegory for USSR-era russia from england's perspective. those loose connections make the lore feel more anchored in reality, as well as more complete.

as opposed to the AoS lore, which... doesn't really exist?

nsc

07-23-2015, 08:43 AM

Alright there are some flaring tempers here indeed! Overall I suggest we remind ourselves that we're playing with toy soldiers :P

Targeting some of the comments, I see people are accusing that the age of sigmar is too small to sustain the game for a long period of time, however the game has barely been released, there haven't been any large events yet (by all means if the sigmar event in warhammer world this september has a poor turn out, maybe then it would be more reasonable to accuse this) and from what anecdotal evidence I've seen and heard the starter kit is selling out like crazy!

I know seven clubs near me that have more people playing sigmar now than the summation of every tourney entry for 8th edition (that's counting people about ten times over since several clubs ran two tournaments since one player can count as multiple tourney entries) and every FLGS near me hasn't been able to keep the sigmar box on the shelf! The books have been selling out (the novella and the scenario/story 'codex') the day they are stocked and people are showing up to Fantasy night and during 'anything goes' days there are people playing age of sigmar (previously every table would be dominated entirely by 40k, warmahordes or infinity), and I hear similar reports from friends I know all over North America.

I think though, for the most part, the problem is that some people insist on making their negativity heard. There's nothing wrong with not liking Age of Sigmar, or being upset that the End Times has happened, but there is something wrong with criticizing someone's hobby because you don't like it. There is no reason for people who hate age of sigmar, to go into forums dedicated to age of sigmar, and do nothing but aggressively argue with people who like age of sigmar.

If you don't like something, you shouldn't go out of your way to find people who do like that something and try to make them miserable.

Taste is of course subjective and just as you cannot convince someone that Chocolate Ice Cream is better than Vanilla Ice Cream, you will be hard pressed to convince someone that the story for age of sigmar isn't entertaining. You can say that perhaps it's juvenile, sophomoric, perhaps even simplistic. However we've come from these roots before. The world that was started somewhere and it wasn't a sprawling epic world at its creation. Even the sources that Warhammer drew upon for inspiration such as Elric had quiet starts which many people critique for being simplistic and dry.

As far as the rules are concerned I've yet to hear a good convincing argument for how they are poor rules. I see people accuse them of not play testing however this is very clearly not the case, the rules flow nicely and they proceed very well.

There are some puzzling lack of limitations on certain things (summoning in general) but most of the arguments surrounding these don't make sense, with things like "the war scroll doesn't exist unless it's fielded in your army" it seems more like people are imposing their own feelings or rules into the four pages. It's more logical to interpret these rule collisions as follows "Nothing in the core rules says to exclude the warscrolls" and "this warscroll says X wizards know this spell"

As for 'balance' or 'fairness' I know people who like age of sigmar are quick to point out that point totals are very anti-social and don't provide fair games. Which I do agree with and a quick look over the ETC 40k tourney lists cements this mentality within me and I don't think I will abandon it soon. I very much favor a loose equal wound count without caring too much about one side having an excess -- what I do care about is repetition of 'efficient' models.

Limiting warscrolls or keywords is a self defeating comp because no two heroes are equal, no two monsters either! A pack master is not equal to Thanquol and Boneripper, nor is a giant equal to a hell pit abomination!
Ultimately I find that the best way to play a fair, close game, is to think about what units both sides are taking, go back to 1e, 2e or 3e warhammer and try to come up with army lists that fit a scenario between the two players (previously the GM would come up with that scenario and army lists but it seems these days people don't want a GM).

I've had loads of fun playing many games of AoS and I can teach anyone I know the rules and they don't hear: "Oh yeah you need the $$$ rulebook and the $$$ army book and then four boxes of these core troops, this hq and that's about one fifth of the models you need to assemble and paint to get you started!"

Muninwing

07-23-2015, 08:46 AM

For some of us, it's the game, for other it seems, it's the tiny fighting men (or fantasy space barbies, to keep some ****ing perpective)

an old friend of mine -- who was the second person to catapult me into 40k at a much deeper level, and who travels across the country to play in national tournaments -- consistently refers to his armies as "mandolls"

perspective is important.

nsc

07-23-2015, 09:09 AM

Excuse you! They're TOURNAMENT mandolls ;)

Muninwing

07-23-2015, 09:52 AM

Targeting some of the comments, I see people are accusing that the age of sigmar is too small to sustain the game for a long period of time, however the game has barely been released, there haven't been any large events yet

you missed the point entirely.

this is not a new game in a vacuum.

i bought into 40k, and later fantasy, due to the fluff. i know that isn't necessarily the norm, but it's my reasoning, and my history. AoS draws from the End Times, which draws from WHF. this is not some dude's garage rules, some middle schooler's unedited "novel" they've been writing for years, or some emerging company with a new concept. this is the next phase of a long chain, and it has departed from the original so abruptly and so completely that people with many thousands of points of armies on their hands are looking for a justification to keep playing.

and many are not getting it.

some of this is bias, and i know i have a lot of that. but some of this is that what they offered before and what they should have been offering now are so widely different that it makes the whole background look trite and silly.

I know seven clubs near me that have more people playing sigmar now than the summation of every tourney entry for 8th edition (that's counting people about ten times over since several clubs ran two tournaments since one player can count as multiple tourney entries) and every FLGS near me hasn't been able to keep the sigmar box on the shelf! The books have been selling out (the novella and the scenario/story 'codex') the day they are stocked and people are showing up to Fantasy night and during 'anything goes' days there are people playing age of sigmar

are you honestly saying that a quality 9th ed, even if it was different but retained much of the same feel and structure, would not have sold similarly?

new product jumping off the shelves is not an indication of a good game. popularity is not a sign of quality. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are currently the favorites for their respective parties in the US election next year.

it's not fair to compare the AoS release with the middle of 8th ed. that was a mess, and enthusiasm died out pretty quickly once people realized how much worse the rules were. partly because of the imbalances in the individual armybook rules (but more on that later). partly because they started taking certain armies in more drastic directions, and the changes they made were not cohesive. partly because players who go bored quickly had other games to go to, for the first time in these numbers. that's an old business model built on primacy that dismisses competition suddenly seeing the long-term picture. for anyone who knows about the US rust belt, or has seen the classic movie UHF (or a ton of others), this is kind of a big deal.

I think though, for the most part, the problem is that some people insist on making their negativity heard. There's nothing wrong with not liking Age of Sigmar, or being upset that the End Times has happened, but there is something wrong with criticizing someone's hobby because you don't like it. There is no reason for people who hate age of sigmar, to go into forums dedicated to age of sigmar, and do nothing but aggressively argue with people who like age of sigmar.

If you don't like something, you shouldn't go out of your way to find people who do like that something and try to make them miserable.

i don't care if my disliking something, or more likely pointing out how poorly a veteran company did with their new flasgship debut, is hurting someone else's feelings. i'm not saying that other people are stupid for liking it, nor am i turning this into a divisive issue. but 8th stole part of my hobby from me by being terrible... and 7th had stolen some of that same hobby from me by being horribly imbalanced and favoritist. i was hoping that a GW under new leadership and having gotten rid of their worst writer would maybe have rebounded, and brought the fun back to a game that i've all bus stopped playing due to its many failures. instead, they "fixed" the parts that were not broken, lost the parts that were the primary draw, and stopped giving much care to their product. i can't see this being a good sign for the company.

There are some puzzling lack of limitations on certain things (summoning in general) but most of the arguments surrounding these don't make sense, with things like "the war scroll doesn't exist unless it's fielded in your army" it seems more like people are imposing their own feelings or rules into the four pages. It's more logical to interpret these rule collisions as follows "Nothing in the core rules says to exclude the warscrolls" and "this warscroll says X wizards know this spell"

there was a recent "but points are a flawed balancing system" argument that worked in the small scale, but fell apart when asked about an alternative. the warscrolls system works for a small-term game... but veteran players have no idea how GW intended this to carry through to the tournament level. and maybe they didn't. the truth is that points are a flawed system, but better than no system, and better than many other systems. it's easier to rip down than build up. a response to the anti-points argument is actually really simple: a properly-done points balancing system with regular updates is probably the most fair and balanced system that one can hope for and whose math is not actively difficult to process.

GW could have had someone working on using FAQs to balance lists back in 6th. before the Ward era, there was a FAQ change to Dark Elves, since their point costs were prohibitive to people actually playing the army, so it's not even unprecedented. paying attention to tournament results, to netlists, and to game exploits and abuses could result in regular fixes to the game that would create a sense of balance and fair play that;s been missing from GW games for nearly a decade.

instead we got a "whoops! well, play it like you want to!" laissez-faire attitude that relies on de-emphasizing their past failures rather than fixing them.

As for 'balance' or 'fairness' I know people who like age of sigmar are quick to point out that point totals are very anti-social and don't provide fair games. Which I do agree with and a quick look over the ETC 40k tourney lists cements this mentality within me and I don't think I will abandon it soon. I very much favor a loose equal wound count without caring too much about one side having an excess -- what I do care about is repetition of 'efficient' models.

Limiting warscrolls or keywords is a self defeating comp because no two heroes are equal, no two monsters either! A pack master is not equal to Thanquol and Boneripper, nor is a giant equal to a hell pit abomination!

point totals are not antisocial. point totals are also, when done properly, pretty fair. but they have to be balanced from the start, unlike what much of GW's pattern has been for years now.

what's more, there's an inherent logical fallacy involved in the statement of "because points aren't perfect, we shouldn't use anything" -- that's like saying "because i cannot cook steak perfectly, i should become a vegetarian." A =/= B.

plus, the "efficient" models are actually controlled by points systems -- the very example you give is the exact problem that emerges from the change.

I've had loads of fun playing many games of AoS and I can teach anyone I know the rules and they don't hear: "Oh yeah you need the $$$ rulebook and the $$$ army book and then four boxes of these core troops, this hq and that's about one fifth of the models you need to assemble and paint to get you started!"

this old misconception again?

if i wanted to play WHF from the beginning, i'd look for an army for myself for playstyle and fluff concerns, searching through the armybooks of my friends or at the local store. i'd then buy a unit i liked, and i'd paint it. then i'd paint an HQ. then a core. this would take me a few months, so i'd be buying them piecemeal, and it's not terribly const-intensive. eventually i'd get the rulebook, and i'd play 500-800 point games with friends or locals as i kept going. it's not a burden if you're a hobbyist which is how their business model as a niche market hobby and luxury good item is constructed.

the impatience of players, largely based on the incorrect parallels that the CCG market has inflicted on the tt wargames market, as well as the competitiveness of the tournament scene interacting with the poorly-balanced advantageous armies adding immediacy to the constructing a larger-sized army, has led to a fallacy of newer players demanding meteoric rise instead of following the hobbyist pattern.

nsc

07-23-2015, 10:11 AM

are you honestly saying that a quality 9th ed, even if it was different but retained much of the same feel and structure, would not have sold similarly?

Yes. In my clubs people are coming to AoS from 5th, from 6th, from 40k, to entirely new fans of the games. I'm seeing people who refuse to touch GW products try the rules for free, I've seen someone who swore to me that he would never buy models from gw, buy a starter kit.

I saw fantasy die when 8th edition came out and it never came back.

plus, the "efficient" models are actually controlled by points systems -- the very example you give is the exact problem that emerges from the change.

Except the point systems for Warhammer and 40k have never, in any edition, controlled or mitigated "efficient" models. There are always many over costed models and under costed models and army building becomes a game about repeating under costed units and never ever fielding over costed units. Which is fine for a tournament setting, however in a casual setting people only seem to play tournament comp rules with tournament lists because it's "fair" and it's easier to play with these lists because it is ANTI SOCIAL. You don't TALK to your opponent, you don't SOCIALIZE. You never come to an agreement to try and HAVE FUN, you just slap down your under costed units because the rules tell you to.

I have never heard someone say "Hey can I bring XXXX extra points because they're ogryns"

The point totals for army construction is bad for 40k and Warhammer because it encourages players to ignore models. I've seen many people look at model kits and want to build and paint the models, but they don't because the rules to play with those models are crap and they can't have fun playing with those models.

Remember when the Dark Eldar released and everyone bought cool models only to be soured later when the rules for them weren't what they wanted?

Points don't magically make 'fair' and balanced game

if i wanted to play WHF from the beginning, i'd look for an army for myself for playstyle and fluff concerns, searching through the armybooks of my friends or at the local store. i'd then buy a unit i liked, and i'd paint it. then i'd paint an HQ. then a core. this would take me a few months, so i'd be buying them piecemeal, and it's not terribly const-intensive. eventually i'd get the rulebook, and i'd play 500-800 point games with friends or locals as i kept going. it's not a burden if you're a hobbyist which is how their business model as a niche market hobby and luxury good item is constructed.

It's not a misconception. People are turned off by the cost of entry into the hobby. A couple editions of 40k ago I saw a 12 year old enter a gamesworkshop with his father in tow, eager to play with small space marines and get started. The sales clerk warned about the sharp knives (which weren't a problem, the two built model car kits together), and then proceeded with a hard sell about the rulebook and the armory book(the armory book being necessary) and with the combined price total the two walked out of the store without buying a thing.

On top of this, I haven't seen a sub 2000 point game of WHFB played since 5th edition. It's great if your local club was accommodating and would pair down fights to 500 or 800 points, however at all my seven clubs people were only playing with tournament lists. Even with "fun", "fluffy" campaigns people would use their tourney lists for more practice and familiarity with what would be fielded.

I only hope that AoS doesn't fall into this trap!

Charon

07-23-2015, 11:28 AM

Except the point systems for Warhammer and 40k have never, in any edition, controlled or mitigated "efficient" models. There are always many over costed models and under costed models and army building becomes a game about repeating under costed units and never ever fielding over costed units. Which is fine for a tournament setting, however in a casual setting people only seem to play tournament comp rules with tournament lists because it's "fair" and it's easier to play with these lists because it is ANTI SOCIAL. You don't TALK to your opponent, you don't SOCIALIZE. You never come to an agreement to try and HAVE FUN, you just slap down your under costed units because the rules tell you to.

I have never heard someone say "Hey can I bring XXXX extra points because they're ogryns"

The point totals for army construction is bad for 40k and Warhammer because it encourages players to ignore models. I've seen many people look at model kits and want to build and paint the models, but they don't because the rules to play with those models are crap and they can't have fun playing with those models.

Remember when the Dark Eldar released and everyone bought cool models only to be soured later when the rules for them weren't what they wanted?

Points don't magically make 'fair' and balanced game

Can't really blame the players for the mistake of the company.
If it is balatant obvious to an average player that a model is over/undercosted, it should have even more obvious to the people who make a living creating these rules.
The "socialize" thing is a strawman. Most of us do. But this is not really helping.
Last week I had a chat with a Space Marines guy ranting about how absurdly overpowered Dark Eldar are. And now try to figure out how much talking (and time spent talking is time you do not spend playing) you need to agree on a powerlevel when you consider your Dark Eldar as one of the weakes codices to date while Space Marines are a top tier codex. Try to tell that guy that he is just a bad player and it is not the army to blame but the player.
Just look how some Eldar players claimed (and still do) that their army is not strong but "average".
While netlisting does exist, it is quite rare as a lot of people lack models or just don't like the suggested playstyle.

Points are not the best solution (especially with the lazy design philosophy of "same item -> same points because a powerfist is as good on an imperial guard sergant as on a Space Marine chapter master") but they are something both players can agree on because they come from a 3rd supposed "neutral" party and not from personal biased opinions.

Muninwing

07-23-2015, 12:26 PM

Yes. In my clubs people are coming to AoS from 5th, from 6th, from 40k, to entirely new fans of the games. I'm seeing people who refuse to touch GW products try the rules for free, I've seen someone who swore to me that he would never buy models from gw, buy a starter kit.

I saw fantasy die when 8th edition came out and it never came back.

8th, and the latter half of 7th, did a number on WHF. just like the second half of 5th did for 40k. bad leadership, the Ward-era of bad balance, economic crises, and a number of other issues plagued them just as some other companies were rising stars. but those other companies stalled out too and have slowed their ascent, with the better ones carving out a small niche for themselves first. 6th/7th for 40k has fixed much of that. and WHF 9th following suit might have been able to match it. but now we will never know.

starters sales are great, but do not imply longterm investment. it's a way of trying it out, getting the feel for it, and saving a bit at the same time... and it's a way of getting a whole bunch of the Stormcast for conversion into 40k projects, which seems like it's become pretty popular. it's retention that i don't think they will have unless they stop being lazy, and maybe even then. by rebooting, they have put themselves on the Warmahordes field, not the other way around, and they have stiff competition for the skirmish-level game, whereas even with flagging numbers they were still the dominant source for army-sized conflict. the people interested in skirmish-level games already have a field to choose from.

and remember that anecdotes are not proof -- for every report i've read about AoS being the second coming, there are others talking about how it's just killed everything for WHF.

one of my local stores is running 50% off for WHF models, because it's the only way they feel they'll break even. but they were pondering scrapping the wntire WHF wall and just selling more products that people buy, for over a year now. still, 40k sells better than any other minis. but the AoS participation has been minimal.

Except the point systems for Warhammer and 40k have never, in any edition, controlled or mitigated "efficient" models. There are always many over costed models and under costed models and army building becomes a game about repeating under costed units and never ever fielding over costed units. Which is fine for a tournament setting, however in a casual setting people only seem to play tournament comp rules with tournament lists because it's "fair" and it's easier to play with these lists because it is ANTI SOCIAL. You don't TALK to your opponent, you don't SOCIALIZE. You never come to an agreement to try and HAVE FUN, you just slap down your under costed units because the rules tell you to.

I have never heard someone say "Hey can I bring XXXX extra points because they're ogryns"

The point totals for army construction is bad for 40k and Warhammer because it encourages players to ignore models. I've seen many people look at model kits and want to build and paint the models, but they don't because the rules to play with those models are crap and they can't have fun playing with those models.

Remember when the Dark Eldar released and everyone bought cool models only to be soured later when the rules for them weren't what they wanted?

Points don't magically make 'fair' and balanced game

social is what happens before, during, and after the game. that we have to spend more time agreeing on what we think it fair actually takes away from real interaction, and forces us to jump through extra hoops. instead, i'd like to have the "alright... 500 points? do you mind if i...? cool cool... so, what do you think of this army? how's life? roll to save... yeah, just like that time when...." interactions. have a few drinks, play the game, and talk. that's social. and i now have more mechanics to pointlessly discuss instead of time to actually talk to someone. how is that "social?"

and the WAAC/tournament/competitive players have fun from the challenge, the tactics and strategy... or only by winning if they're cheap. cutting most of the actual tactics and strategy in favor of tricks, and making many more random and non-skill-based effects takes away from the ability to win via personal skill. that takes away from the "play to have fun" element for many. the rest can have fun even when playing any game, even when losing, so there's no need to invent a social aspect that isn't really a social aspect in order to create a false dichotomy where "fun" is only generated if you don;t have points.

and as for points... points are not the enemy. eliminating all points systems do not make for balance. but bad points systems do not make for fair games. the key is to fix the system, not start over from whole cloth, or worse -- just axe the concept of balance entirely.

when i was a redshirt, back in the halcyon days of 4th/7th, about 2004, the only two units that were remarkably not-balanced for their points were the Necron Monolith and the Wood Elf Dryads. just about everything else was comparable, with only the most fanatic of the WAAC/tourney/mathhammer crowd looking for slight advantage in a point or so difference. you could play just about whatever you wanted, and it'd be both fun and interesting, and you'd have a chance at winning.

the beginning of the end was probably the BT book, which was underwhelming. then the also-subpar 4th ed Chaos book... but also those who discovered that spamming Lash of Submission and Nurgle bikers was the key to winning. and from there, when the better-than-average books came out (in WHF it started with the ASF High Elves, and spread through VC, DE, and culminated in the nerfing and splitting of traditional chaos, and the debut of the ridiculously OP daemons armybook). then 5th began, terrible FAQs were written, SM got a hug buff, and the imbalances stated to take over. the ward-era had begun, and the imbalances in the game created angry players and entitled players and encouraged the min/max style that exists today. it's wasn's always like that, nor does it need to be. and the lack of leadership of the era means that with a competent staff they'd be able to fix it, if they admitted their mistakes.

but again, show me a better balancing metric than an accurate points scale.

It's not a misconception. People are turned off by the cost of entry into the hobby. A couple editions of 40k ago I saw a 12 year old enter a gamesworkshop with his father in tow, eager to play with small space marines and get started. The sales clerk warned about the sharp knives (which weren't a problem, the two built model car kits together), and then proceeded with a hard sell about the rulebook and the armory book(the armory book being necessary) and with the combined price total the two walked out of the store without buying a thing.

On top of this, I haven't seen a sub 2000 point game of WHFB played since 5th edition. It's great if your local club was accommodating and would pair down fights to 500 or 800 points, however at all my seven clubs people were only playing with tournament lists. Even with "fun", "fluffy" campaigns people would use their tourney lists for more practice and familiarity with what would be fielded.

I only hope that AoS doesn't fall into this trap!

we regularly had 1750 tournaments. 2000 was usually the max if you didn't want a huge issue. i even played in an escalation league around the Nemesis Crown time that started at 750, and was a lot of fun. remember, your personal meta doesn't mean everyone's matches.

as for "the armory book" -- do you mean the Wargear book that was instantly outdated? that is an indication that the salesperson was an idiot, not that the product was flawed. what's more, as i detailed above, for the price of a PS2 back in the day (that same era i was a redshirt) i could field a solid 1200-point army and buy the minirules on ebay... at least from 7th on. and i wouldn't have to buy a controller or games from there, and once i beat one game i wouldn't get bored with it and have to buy a new one.

or i could buy the whole thing on ebay and get it cheaper.

or i could go in with a friend for a starter, realistically at any point, and split the difference as a good beginning. or two, and share, if we both want the rules.

it's a hobby. if you want to treat it as such, you spend luxury/surplus money on it, and you do so gradually instead if this foolish myth of needing 2000 points all at once despite the assembly and paint times. and, as far as hobbies go, it's actually pretty cheap. try golf, or alcoholism, or being an active sports fan, or restoring cars, or bass fishing.

they are all in the same category. and as with all of them, there's a level you can participate at as a kid with little money, there's a level you can participate at as an adult with a little extra, and there's the ideal level you can participate at as an adult with enough money to sustain a hobby -- the "i want it all now" attitude, or the tournament-encouraged and imbalance-fueled attitude of needing 2000 points immediately of the best army out there in order to play is not only unsustainable, it's foolish unless you're participating at what in another field would be the pro level.

and at this point, despite what their fans say, the game sizes for other company products (such as WM/H) have grown, the cost per model has grown (though most people are bad at figuring in inflation when they equate GW product prices and "why is it so much more expensive now?" whining), and game entrance is much more than it used to be. that's what happens as the fans invest in the game. that's why apocalypse exists. that's also why i can actually field 12,000 points of Imperial forces - it's a hobby. collections grow. still, because GW is the leader in the market, they become an easy target for people with more entitlement than sense, or people unprepared to start an actual hobby.

Erik Setzer

07-23-2015, 02:11 PM

I know seven clubs near me that have more people playing sigmar now than the summation of every tourney entry for 8th edition (that's counting people about ten times over since several clubs ran two tournaments since one player can count as multiple tourney entries) and every FLGS near me hasn't been able to keep the sigmar box on the shelf! The books have been selling out (the novella and the scenario/story 'codex') the day they are stocked and people are showing up to Fantasy night and during 'anything goes' days there are people playing age of sigmar (previously every table would be dominated entirely by 40k, warmahordes or infinity), and I hear similar reports from friends I know all over North America.

Congrats. I hear other reports. I see otherwise locally. People are trying the game, but just keep coming away feeling empty, except for the most endlessly optimistic people, and I get the feeling they're going to hit a breaking point in another month or so. The GW store couldn't get many preorders despite doing crazy well with preorders for all kinds of stuff, especially the End Times books. Copies of AoS are sitting on shelves all over town. Armies are going up for sale because people are so turned off they don't even want to keep their armies.

And there's still this:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer-Age-of-Sigmar-Book-LTDEd

Seriously? Only 2000 copies worldwide, it's a historic event, it's pretty standard pricing for a GW limited edition. Two weeks on, and it's still there. How? How can they not find 2000 people who at least see the collector value? Heck, even I saw its worth as a collector item. (Kind of feel bad now because I decided last Friday to pay for it online out of fear it'd be gone quickly, rather than coming in to the GW store to pay for it so it'd count for the manager's sales.) There's no way it should still be available.

So people can talk up how "excited" all the folks they know are for AoS, and act like it's an amazing game for that reason, and all this wonderful stuff, but so far that's not translating to sales or even showing in a key product.

Erik Setzer

07-23-2015, 02:25 PM

Can't really blame the players for the mistake of the company.

See, that's my biggest problem with people who defend the lack of points... They're trying to excuse it by saying, "Well, GW just doesn't really try to balance points anyway, so why bother having them?" Claiming people are "anti-social" because it's easy to agree to a points value is beyond silly, it's straight up insulting. People just say "Hey, wanna play 1500 points 40K?" because there's an expectation that such would be a fair match, because you expect two armies of the same points to be equal in power, so it's a nice even match. Sometimes people want to do special scenarios or something, and they'll still discuss that. But otherwise, it should be simple to agree to a set of points and have a good, fair match. That's nothing to do with tournaments, it's not anti-social, it *is* casual gaming.

And the same people in many cases were bashing people for pointing out that GW was starting to get really screwy with points and breaking balance in 40K, to the point we now have formations that give stuff away for free just to encourage buying more models, which throws balance out the window even more, such that 40K is soon going to hit a downhill slide if they keep doing that. But hey, we point out GW's not balancing things well, we get called all kinds of names. Then GW throws points out and those same folks defend it with, "Well, GW doesn't know how to balance anything anyway, so you as the players should be willing to do their job for them and balance the game. If you don't, you're an anti-social WAAC tournament players who doesn't like casual gaming!"

Caitsidhe

07-23-2015, 06:46 PM

I think though, for the most part, the problem is that some people insist on making their negativity heard. There's nothing wrong with not liking Age of Sigmar, or being upset that the End Times has happened, but there is something wrong with criticizing someone's hobby because you don't like it. There is no reason for people who hate age of sigmar, to go into forums dedicated to age of sigmar, and do nothing but aggressively argue with people who like age of sigmar.

The problem is that this isn't a Forum (or even a site) dedicated to Age of Sigmar. This is a site of war gaming and hobby enthusiasts. That means people will talk about what they like and what they don't like. Nothing forces people who simply wish to be part of the psycho pep-squad for Games Workshop to come here and listen to anyone's negativity. Nothing forces us to listen to the Pollyanna types nor the Shills. We choose to come here and we choose which posts to read and which to ignore. There is nothing wrong with giving a critique (hot or cold) anymore than there is giving praise. There is something wrong with those who anoint themselves the thought police however.

Muninwing

07-23-2015, 06:52 PM

Then GW throws points out and those same folks defend it with, "Well, GW doesn't know how to balance anything anyway, so you as the players should be willing to do their job for them and balance the game. If you don't, you're an anti-social WAAC tournament players who doesn't like casual gaming!"

i don't know how to speak swahili, so i should just give up on communication.
i don't know how to make foie gras, so i should just always order out.
i don't know how to drive a tank, so i shouldn't get on my bicycle.

it's more like...

i'm not good at languages, and i don't want to put in the time to learn swahili, so i cannot be an interpreter

but GW is like

i'm going to speak in swahili, and make it up when i don't know a word, so you who watch me not be good at swahili now believe that no language is ever worth learning...

hm. this analogy kind of got away with me. probably because it's not about food. i use food analogies all the time. i once told my wife that she was steak (and my ex was a bad salad).

Alaric

07-23-2015, 08:47 PM

i don't know how to speak swahili, so i should just give up on communication.
i don't know how to make foie gras, so i should just always order out.
i don't know how to drive a tank, so i shouldn't get on my bicycle.

it's more like...

i'm not good at languages, and i don't want to put in the time to learn swahili, so i cannot be an interpreter

but GW is like

i'm going to speak in swahili, and make it up when i don't know a word, so you who watch me not be good at swahili now believe that no language is ever worth learning...

hm. this analogy kind of got away with me. probably because it's not about food. i use food analogies all the time. i once told my wife that she was steak (and my ex was a bad salad).

Makala nzuri. manufaa yake ya kuona wewe kutambua hilo ni pointless kujadiliana na erik . nadhani unaweza unataka kuwapunguza Bong .

daboarder

07-23-2015, 09:19 PM

um Alaric, pretty sure Munin is AGREEING with Erik?

just, ya know.....

Erik Setzer

07-24-2015, 05:31 AM

um Alaric, pretty sure Munin is AGREEING with Erik?

just, ya know.....

Yeah, it's funny that he's trying to insult me, while making himself look clueless in the process. It did give me a good chuckle to laugh about on the way to work, though.

Caitsidhe

07-24-2015, 06:28 AM

In regards to points and costs (whatever you call the mechanic), they are pretty much necessary for a war game. I've never understood GW's in ability to accurately set costs for their game. It isn't difficult. You don't start at the top, or the best. You start at the normal solider, i.e. who is going to cost a single point. Let's say for the sake of argument that the game is anthropomorphic, i.e. it considers human beings the normal standard. Then let's assume that our basic 1pt model will be a normal human soldier. We will avoid going into gender bias here. It isn't necessary. We are simply measuring the normal human soldier.

1. We have determined that a rating of (2) is the normal rating in at Attribute for a normal human soldier.
2. We have decided that the normal human soldier will also have both a melee and ranged weapon.
3. We have decided that the average damage of said ranged weapon will also be (2). Just for simplicity we will give said weapon a range of 10" (this could easily be adjusted).
4. We have decided that the average human soldier will have an Armor save of 6+.
5. We have decided that the average human solider will have no invulnerable save.
6. We have decided arbitrarily that the average human soldier, for this example, will have a movement of 6".

Ok, to keep things simple let's end the variables there. So far, for 1pt, we have model which has all Attributes at (2), Armor 6+, no invulnerable save, and a range of 10" with the ranged weapon.

COST INCREASES *Logic dictates that for every increase in the factors above, there should be a price increase.

1. Raising Attributes: Increases should raise the prices 1 to 1. Thus if I to increase the Strength of my soldier to six, would add a cost of +4 to said model.
2. Lowering my Armor save should also be 1 to 1. Thus going from a 6+ save to a 3+ should increase the cost of my soldier by +3 to said model.
3. Adding an invulnerable save should also increase the cost by one per level. You get the idea.
4. Adding weapons with greater damage/range should also increase the cost. Commonsense right?
5. Adding additional movement should increase cost too. You could keep things simple and just equate 1" per point, or you could have a more generous scale.

COST DECREASES *Logic dictates that taking things below the norm should reduce the price. This comes with the caveat that no model can cost below 1pt and you can't get a reduction for lowering something you cannot use.

1. Lowering your basic Attributes beneath (2) should likewise lower costs.
2. Making an armor save worse would provide a reduction.
3. Making a model slower would give a reduction.
4. Taking away a ranged weapon (or its range) could provide a reduction.
5. *You should be getting the idea by now.

HELPFUL SPECIAL RULES *Logic dictates you must use a consistent standard in costs for any such rules.

*Then there are the "special" rules which all have a unique name. This rules must have a set cost, period. They add to any model who gets them at exactly the same value. This means if you make a model "Immune to Fear" and set a cost of 1pt, it must cost additional point to every model that gets it.

HARMFUL SPECIAL RULES *Logic dictates you must us a consistent standard in cost benefits for any such rules.

*Finally, there are special rules which are essentially flaws. Taking them makes the model less effective in some way. As a result, costs are lowered. Obviously said flaw must grant exactly the same pricing change no matter what model it is applied to without exception.

It should be stated that the Players shouldn't have to do this process. The formula should be public and transparent, but the company releasing the game should have already made all these calculations before releasing the models to market. Those of you who can do math will quickly discover that a normal human soldier (who costs 1pt) is a lot less than say a Space Marine who has a bunch of Attributes at four, great armor saves, and superior weapons. That is how it is supposed to work.

Muninwing

07-24-2015, 06:52 AM

to be fair, Erik and i often do not agree in comments on articles. but i also understand that he has a definite point of view and strong opinion, so i respect that.

but i've noticed that this is a super-polarizing issue here, and that it's a major dividing line already among gamers.

some people are just happy to use their old models, after having given up on the game. some are actually enjoying AoS (though i question for how long they will enjoy the game... many people enjoyed LotR for awhile too, but look how that turned out in the end). some are optimistic about the new open world being turned into something new. some like the slimmed-down feel of capitalizing on the simplistic in-game conflict. and some just write off anyone not liking it as a crybaby instead of asking why there's such a strong backlash.

but others had hoped for redemption of the franchise, instead of a glorified Mordheim plunked into the flagship seat too early. or they played and realized that what they liked about WHF is just not present in AoS. or they see all the time and money they put into creating a large force and realize that there are (unlike the rumors had assured them) no forthcoming rules for larger games that would ever make those models useful.

i think that the worst mistake they made was getting people's hopes up about WH9... that maybe this time with all the changes to 40k and all the financial reports showing that they'd made a mess out of WHF, that they'd release a two-tiered product that could be both played as a skirmish game and as a traditional wargame... that as a supposed proponent of collectors they'd be mindful of their longstanding fans with expanding collections and would give them ways to use their large forces... that they'd strip out the unsuccessful aspects of change they'd added and tinkered with, actually do appropriate playtesting to clear up issues before printing, and give all the armies the 40k treatment with new books and fixes to wash away the wardtaint and bring balance to the force.

wait... it's just like that. "the one to bring balance to the force" literally meaning "the one who kills off all but two, so there's just as many jedi as sith" was one of the few clever things about the SW prequels. and AoS does indeed bring balance... by making everything silly.

Filthy Casual

07-24-2015, 07:16 AM

nsc

07-24-2015, 07:44 AM

traditional wargame

So... when you say TRADITIONAL WARGAME you probably need to define yourself here...

Because older editions of warhammer had a game master who helped army creation and points weren't really a thing, the battles fought were heavily dependent on scenarios with exploration as a key factor, much like a roleplaying game.

Furthermore most wargames are historicals which don't really focus on points either, they focus on battles with reported unit compositions and again points aren't really a thing, you're playing out a scenario, battles that really happened.

No true scotsman and all that right ;)

Caitsidhe

07-24-2015, 07:48 AM

Balancing points costs is never that simple, either you know that and you're being disingenuous or you're not aware.

There are many other factors to it that simple arithmetic increases.

And no, they're not necessary, decades of actual wargames would tell you as much.

Actually, it is that simple. And yes, decades of actual war games support that. People can choose not to have a logical, balanced system but that isn't data supporting the notion that doing so doesn't work. In a balanced system, cost equates to function. That's it. Moreover, all systems of numbers are arbitrary. You set an arbitrary floor with an arbitrary level of function and scale upwards (and sometimes downwards) from there. You can add additional factors to the process, but unless they are tied DIRECTLY to cost equals function, they are irrelevant and undermine the process.

Erik Setzer

07-24-2015, 08:17 AM

Well, points costs really *aren't* just "make a chart and go with it." In theory, sure. But in reality, that goes out the window when you add weapons, special rules, stuff like that.

It's not really that difficult to get things right, though. It just involves time and effort. You start off applying points that you think feel right in comparison to other units. Yep, it's a gut feeling, not math. Then you break out some stand-in models if none are available to use yet, and you go through playtesting. You hand the list to someone else and ask them to make armies. Try different angles. Look to break the army. And then you tweak as you go along, doing continuous rounds and tweaking.

All of that, though, does take some time and needs more people than just the small staff of a design team, who are too close to their baby to want to break it. So you need, say, 2-3 months for a new army, with at least 20 people outside the design team involved. Weekly or biweekly rounds of testing followed by tweaking.

Yeah, it means you can't rush new books out the door every other week, but it's how you do your best to balance things.

Bonus: If it turns out something's wrong, be open to the idea of doing errata to correct points or rules that are off. If you're a major gaming company, modern technology makes that remarkably easy. You release updates online in the form of a PDF for people who've bought the rules (if you sell the rules), and you update your files before sending them for the next print run.

Try making a codex yourself some time, see how easy it is to do it with cold, hard mathematics. You'll find that doesn't really work. It "should," but it doesn't. (At least, if you're not building a game devoid of different special rules and stuff, and only going based on a stat line.)

Charon

07-24-2015, 08:19 AM

In a balanced system, cost equates to function. That's it.

Rending on a Model with WS3, I3 and 1A is not the same function like rending on a WS4, I4 and 10A model. Still it would be 1 point each. It is kind of like current 40k where the imperial guard sergant has to pay the same amount of points for his power weapon than the space marine chapter master which multiplies its power.

Filthy Casual

07-24-2015, 08:24 AM

Actually, it is that simple. And yes, decades of actual war games support that. People can choose not to have a logical, balanced system but that isn't data supporting the notion that doing so doesn't work. In a balanced system, cost equates to function. That's it. Moreover, all systems of numbers are arbitrary. You set an arbitrary floor with an arbitrary level of function and scale upwards (and sometimes downwards) from there. You can add additional factors to the process, but unless they are tied DIRECTLY to cost equals function, they are irrelevant and undermine the process.

I think you missed the point here, wargames have been using scenarios to decide force composition for a lot longer than they've used a points based system. Its not at all a necessity. If you want to make a game designed for tournament play, then yes, some sort of balancing mechanic would be required. Games Workshop don't want to make a game designed for tournament play.

Caitsidhe

07-24-2015, 09:16 AM

odinsgrandson

07-24-2015, 09:17 AM

I think you missed the point here, wargames have been using scenarios to decide force composition for a lot longer than they've used a points based system. Its not at all a necessity. If you want to make a game designed for tournament play, then yes, some sort of balancing mechanic would be required. Games Workshop don't want to make a game designed for tournament play.

I think the point is, the games pretty much always have a way to balance the forces.

For historical games, the game itself is a sort of research to see whether or not the battle was balanced- if it could have gone the other way.

Scenario play is always meant to be balanced- often by giving advantages to the player who has less powerful/fewer troops.

In the case of wargames that use a GM, well a GM's job has always been to create balance. This was even more emphasized in the older RPG books from TSR that would have been concurrent to those editions of Warhammer.

Some games use other systems to create balance- like the summoning rules in Monsterpocalypse, or the more complex scenario rules that Andy Chambers wrote for Starship Troopers.

The underlying concept though, is that people don't like playing an imbalanced game and just getting crushed or just stomping all over their opponents forces with impunity. They like things to feel like they could go either way, and that the decision making of the player comes into account.

Point values are only one way of accomplishing this, but many people can't see how the game is better for not having any balancing system whatsoever.

Caitsidhe

07-24-2015, 09:18 AM

Rending on a Model with WS3, I3 and 1A is not the same function like rending on a WS4, I4 and 10A model. Still it would be 1 point each. It is kind of like current 40k where the imperial guard sergant has to pay the same amount of points for his power weapon than the space marine chapter master which multiplies its power.

True but Rending on a Model with WS3, I3, and 1A does NOT cost remotely the same as one with WS4, I4, and 10A. We covered this. Every little thing that increments MUST cost. It applies to weapons and everything else. If you charge appropriately it all balances out.

Filthy Casual

07-24-2015, 09:22 AM

And hence their problem. Their rising competition do make balanced games. :D Games Workshop can continue to ignore the obvious as long as they like. I find it entertaining.

It's not a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

True but Rending on a Model with WS3, I3, and 1A does NOT cost remotely the same as one with WS4, I4, and 10A. We covered this. Every little thing that increments MUST cost. It applies to weapons and everything else. If you charge appropriately it all balances out.

Please feel free to try and come up with such a system and I'm sure it won't be a tedious boring mess at all.

Muninwing

07-24-2015, 10:50 AM

So... when you say TRADITIONAL WARGAME you probably need to define yourself here...

Because older editions of warhammer had a game master who helped army creation and points weren't really a thing, the battles fought were heavily dependent on scenarios with exploration as a key factor, much like a roleplaying game.

Furthermore most wargames are historicals which don't really focus on points either, they focus on battles with reported unit compositions and again points aren't really a thing, you're playing out a scenario, battles that really happened.

No true scotsman and all that right ;)

two different threads of conversation here...

first, that points are a mechanic for balancing, and that they can be used to greater or lesser extents, and they can assign a simple or complex value to a game... this i believe. but i've also stated that i don't believe it lives in a vacuum, that it is 100% accurate, or that it is the best system. still, just because something is not the best, but you cannot delineate a better option, does not mean that you should do nothing. that's more of a logical fallacy.

second, what i meant by "traditional wargame" was just that... the kind that is reflected in HG Wells and Chainmail and WHF... unit-based tactical games with concerns generally or specifically parallel to those of a leader of a squad or army. even certain skirmish games fit, to a lesser extent. mostly, what i meant is a game less focused on the individual and more on the unit, or the whole army.

i know that there are many different ways of playing, of balancing, and situations that can be competitive and interesting without points... but i also know that if the rules all use a balancing metric effectively, and there is a system of measuring units against each other, then the game can be played in such a way that players of relative skill don't steamroll over one another and an army doesn't play itself and all can have fun.

personally, i think that the Maelstrol missions are a good (if repetitive and simplified) start... and that mission-based or narrative-based scenarios with interesting goals are the way to go. i'd love to play in a campaign where one mission was a take-and-hold: army one only gets half its points on the table, deploys in terrain at the center, and earns points by holding 2-3 objectives (at least one distant from the main). player 2 gets points for eliminating units and for killing the general. then the same two players with the same two armies switch positions and do it again, and add up the total score from both matches.

points might be less important there, but they help.

points can create a match where one big guy goes against a more or less fair set of many smaller guys. or one can include a great hero and the other can use two smaller ones. it's only as good as how actually efficient it is, though -- and that's what has been lost.

daboarder

07-24-2015, 03:44 PM

ColeVVatkins

07-24-2015, 04:18 PM

Slave = Clanrat = Stormvermin... That's my only issue with wound battles.

Caitsidhe

07-24-2015, 04:38 PM

It's not a problem.

Well the newest report is out in a handful of days. My predictions about another decline are documented. I am putting forward the notion that it is a problem for them... an ongoing one... becoming more acute with each report. :D

Please feel free to try and come up with such a system and I'm sure it won't be a tedious boring mess at all.

It is a tedious, boring exercise. That is why we pay OTHER people to do it. When we drop big money for a game, we expect the producer of that game to have already done the tedious, boring work for us so we can just play the game. Games Workshop seems to think they get to charge us as if they did the work, but that we can do it for them. In short, they think we are all mouth-breathing morons. They are slowly but surely reaping what they have sown. :D

As it happens, I have worked out a system of costs and it does work. The costs per model vary dramatically from what Games Workshop sets in 40K. A low number stay within 5pts +/-. A few other adjustments to bad mechanics in play and the system can be fixed. If they want to pay me for my labor, I will gladly share it with them. Just like Games Workshop, I like to be paid for my efforts. Unlike them, I have reasonable prices.

Kirsten

07-25-2015, 03:12 AM

Well the newest report is out in a handful of days. My predictions about another decline are documented. I am putting forward the notion that it is a problem for them... an ongoing one... becoming more acute with each report. :D

what I don't understand, aside from your spurious, subjective bull**** which we are all used to now is a) why are you even posting here when you clearly hate everything GW do, and b) why are you taking such smug delight in their prophesied demise? it is a clearly a company and system people love, why do you want it to fail? did GW come round and personally kill all your family in front of you? or are you just that pathetic?

grimmas

07-25-2015, 03:21 AM

Gw have already told us there's a small downturn I don't see how he's predicting anything. Also it'll have nothing to do with AoS which wasn't released till this financial year

Caitsidhe

07-25-2015, 04:25 AM

what I don't understand, aside from your spurious, subjective bull**** which we are all used to now is a) why are you even posting here when you clearly hate everything GW do, and b) why are you taking such smug delight in their prophesied demise? it is a clearly a company and system people love, why do you want it to fail? did GW come round and personally kill all your family in front of you? or are you just that pathetic?

Actually, I'd like to see GW turn it around. I've just come to accept that it will have to get very dark before the dawn. They are literally going to have to hit rock bottom before their corporate culture changes. Their current board and leadership are terrible. Unfortunately, as they are really just a small corporation in the scheme of things, there isn't enough pressure yet to can or put out to pasture, without any power, the lot. If I thought being a Pollyanna on the issue would help, I'm sure I would be right there with the psycho pep-squad and shills. I just know better.

Gw have already told us there's a small downturn I don't see how he's predicting anything. Also it'll have nothing to do with AoS which wasn't released till this financial year

I'm actually referencing another thread in the Wargames Corporate Discussion area. My predictions for the 28th have been up since the day after the last report (long before they started trying to lower our expectations for this one). Likewise, I had predicted the results of the last report too. Lots of so-called, small downturns add up to big loss. While I agree that the damage AOS will do won't show up (big time) until the next report, this one should be rather telling considering that a near constant barrage of new releases for their most profitable game (40K) will still have only see profits continue to dip. It is kind of big picture deal.

grimmas

07-25-2015, 05:51 AM

Hmmm causality and predictions are not really the same thing. Still at least we can agree that we don't know the effect of AoS yet

nsc

07-27-2015, 07:26 AM

AoS will be an upturn, for sure, just off starter kits that are sold to 40k people to convert into terminators etc etc.

The starter kit sold amazingly well in many areas, sure it's anecdotal evidence, but they've been having trouble keeping stores stocked with the starter kit at least :)

The other kits and other 'premium' accessories probably will be a down turn, although I did see a high elf player with the dice-cup and the battle gauge (I'm just as confused as you are). So who knows, maybe they will be an upturn.

I've seen people call for the death of GW during every edition change, every codex, every supplement, and I'm more than a little sick of all you chicken littles!

odinsgrandson

07-27-2015, 08:28 AM

Actually, I'd like to see GW turn it around. I've just come to accept that it will have to get very dark before the dawn. They are literally going to have to hit rock bottom before their corporate culture changes.

I agree with you somewhat- I'd love to see GW turn it around. I've been closely watching their decline for quite a few years, and I really want to see them change things around.

To me, their release schedule looks like a number of quick patches trying to put a quick band-aid over the problem, and this has gotten worse over the past year (Space Hulk re-release, Assassinorum, quite a few very small forces in full priced books, and the re-release of the Space Marine codex earlier than expected).

I hope they don't have to 'hit rock bottom' before they'll turn it around. To be honest, I think they could turn it around right now.

Age of Sigmar so far to me looks like it might have a positive effect on GW's finances, and I feel like they came close to getting it right with release of free rules. I just feel that their dedication to a game with no balance will hurt them in the long run.

Filthy Casual

07-27-2015, 09:10 AM

Small splash releases, like Space Hulk or Assasainorium are not the cash cows everyone assumes, they make very little, if any, money on those things, they're more to keep the fans happy.

Likewise with books, with writing, layout, printing and distribution, there is very little profit in a hardback book even at GW prices, they're not a money spinner. They changed the books to move the game more into the direction they want to take their sector of the hobby, away from the hyper-competitive, WAAC, tournament style gamer and more towards the casual end of the market.

Age of Sigmar is the logical conclusion of this move because Fantasy had it even worse than 40K, it was stagnating because they hadn't managed to wrestle it away from this competitive mind set so they needed a huge change to shift the culture (knowingly and happily ditching undesirable customers in the process), with 40k they've been a bit more careful and pruned it away over the years while it still makes money.

This isn't a short term money making goal for GW, they want to change their target audience for the long haul and are purposefully shifting the goalposts, if you don't like the product they're selling, they know that and they're fine with losing you as a customer.

GW isn't hitting rock bottom, it's just ditching the dead weight from its customer base.

40K is now basically broken as a tournament game at this point, to make it work they have to add tons of stipulations, caveats and restrictions, Age of Sigmar is GWs Ideal of a wargame, its what 40k has been heading towards for years but done as one giant leap rather than a gentle guiding.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet other game aystems manage to get very good working balance without all the trouble you claim

Name one.

Just one game system, where the fan base doesn't complain, ***** and moan about the "balance" of whatever system it uses.

I'm already preemptively laughing at you for naming Infinity as an example.

daboarder

07-27-2015, 03:02 PM

Name one.Just one game system, where the fan base doesn't complain, ***** and moan about the "balance" of whatever system it uses.

I'm already preemptively laughing at you for naming Infinity as an example.
:rolleyes:

never go full GW apoologist

seriously though mate, you might want to shop around, have a look. plenty of games where the balance isnt borked to hell through design laziness.

edit: but in all seriousness, while infinity, Kings of War and X-wing dont have perfect balance they are orders of magnitude beyond the unplayable twiddly thumbs that GW is releasing with AoS. I mean, infinity even has official forums (you know those things your lot are always saying wind up nothing but "nerd" complaining. and you know what, not a complaint in sight (at least, not a substantial one about balance)

Charon

07-27-2015, 04:05 PM

Name one.

Just one game system, where the fan base doesn't complain, ***** and moan about the "balance" of whatever system it uses.

Perfect balance is not realistic. But communication between developer and gamer is.

Even if the fanbase is complaining about their view on game balance you WILL have the company interacting with them.

Phrases like "we are aware of that issue and are working on a solution", "our test suggest that it is fine can you please point out the exact parameters where you think the rules are insufficient" or "have you considered using X" do a whole lot to quell complaining.
Remaining silent does nothing good. Quite the opposite... it sends a signal that you are not valued as a customer.. you already spent your money and now shut up.

Even regularly updated FAQs would go a long way silencing complaints.

nsc

07-27-2015, 06:20 PM

I just feel that their dedication to a game with no balance will hurt them in the long run.

I find that Age of Sigmar is better balanced than 40k.

Furthermore, no edition of 40k or WHFB has been balanced and they're the largest miniature company in the world so your analysis that being dedicated to a "game with no balance" will hurt them is wrong.

Charistoph

07-27-2015, 09:41 PM

edit: but in all seriousness, while infinity, Kings of War and X-wing dont have perfect balance they are orders of magnitude beyond the unplayable twiddly thumbs that GW is releasing with AoS. I mean, infinity even has official forums (you know those things your lot are always saying wind up nothing but "nerd" complaining. and you know what, not a complaint in sight (at least, not a substantial one about balance)

Yet, they do exist on Infiniti's forum. Not every other post, but it does exist.

But there is a very good reason why GW dropped their forums. They were rather toxic when I joined that forum less than a year before they closed, and only got worse from there.

Even regularly updated FAQs would go a long way silencing complaints.

Not really. There was a recent point in time when FAQs were coming with amazing frequency, and while most of the changes were well received, there was still whining and crying about some of them (ex: Flamer-equipped Hell Drake). This is because their FAQ team is as familiar with the whole ruleset as their development team, if not less.

daboarder

07-27-2015, 10:03 PM

Yet, they do exist on Infiniti's forum. Not every other post, but it does exist.

But there is a very good reason why GW dropped their forums. They were rather toxic when I joined that forum less than a year before they closed, and only got worse from there.

And when they show up people point out where they are wrong and so on and so forth. thats the difference, the balance is there, and while certain units are "lackluster" on paper they are completely usable in the game and taken by many.

its not perfect, but its a much MUCH more enjoyable game where the balance is much better done than the "Lol take whatever losers you already bought our mini's" BS that GW pulls.

And yes while the GW forums were toxic, the point I am making is that done RIGHT, balance and communication solves many of a game/communities issues and is worthy of the effort put into achieving it

Charon

07-27-2015, 11:58 PM

But there is a very good reason why GW dropped their forums. They were rather toxic when I joined that forum less than a year before they closed, and only got worse from there.

So I wonder how other developers maintain a rather healty community. Even games like LoL with way more players manage to have moderated forums without drowning in toxic waste. Just GW seems to be unable to interact. That is fun as a lot of people claim communication ist the key to a fun game and talk about "gamer autism" while the developers attitude seems to be exactly the opposite of what they expect from their players.

Not really. There was a recent point in time when FAQs were coming with amazing frequency, and while most of the changes were well received, there was still whining and crying about some of them (ex: Flamer-equipped Hell Drake). This is because their FAQ team is as familiar with the whole ruleset as their development team, if not less.

Amazing frequenzy? Are you serious? Ther was ONE faq with 7th editon. And this ONE Faq did not even cover any of the questions asked.
Burning questions at this time were: "How does spell familiar work under the new rules" "Does chaos focus count for the one power marked psykers must have"

Answer: Baleflamers now have a 45° Fire Arc

Auticus

07-28-2015, 07:12 AM

As I recall the GW forums, for every post that was meaningful there were two posts complaining about prices. And this was around 2000 - 2003 or so.

daboarder

07-28-2015, 07:15 AM

http://web.archive.org/web/20070227103552/http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/default.htm

Ahh nostalgia.

still looking for another copy of the laius rift campaing, read that to pieces and the tandaris outbreak. GOD they were so good

Al Shut

07-28-2015, 08:25 AM

They were rather toxic when I joined that forum [...] and only got worse from there.

Not adding anything to the discussion but I found this to be unintentionally hilarious.

nsc

07-28-2015, 08:43 AM

Um, this might be slightly off topic, but it's kind of on topic, since this is about problems with AoS and "price" is a problem...

I love infinity, I've got 1000 points of combined army, I've got the Avatar, a bunch of space monkeys, witch soldiers, the drone with flamers and the palm tree lol, I've got 200 points of Yu-Jing.

Why do people complain about GW prices and in the same breath profess their undying love for infinity? GW models are much cheaper per model than the infinity models.

Path Walker

07-28-2015, 08:49 AM

ColeVVatkins

07-28-2015, 08:50 AM

Because hating on the big company makes you cool and non conformist.

Emo?

spiralingcadaver

07-28-2015, 11:06 AM

Because hating on the big company makes you cool and non conformist.

How about "Because Infinity has a way lower model count"?

Infinity is a skirmish system priced like a skirmish system. GW games are typically large combat games priced like skirmish systems. Despite being cheaper per model, (for example) a squad of 10 tactical marines makes up like 10% of your army if you stretch it, while a set of 6-ish skirmish guys (ex: infinity or malifaux starters) costs about the same (total) and can typically make up 30-50% of an army, while some (at least in the case of malifaux) can be an entire, tournament legal force right out of the box if you stretch it.

Or then there's 5 terminators, which have a lower model count than most equivalently priced skirmish boxes and make up a little more of your army than tac marines, and really aren't that much larger or more detailed.

Charistoph

07-28-2015, 03:11 PM

And when they show up people point out where they are wrong and so on and so forth. thats the difference, the balance is there, and while certain units are "lackluster" on paper they are completely usable in the game and taken by many.

Not the one's I've seen. But instead of being toxic about it, they tend to just shrug their shoulders and move on or make attempts to make it work. When GW is encountered it suddenly must be vitriol that is produced instead of moving on.

And yes while the GW forums were toxic, the point I am making is that done RIGHT, balance and communication solves many of a game/communities issues and is worthy of the effort put into achieving it

GW didn't make them toxic, it was a bunch of people who dedicated themselves to destroying the community. It was worse than reading a Blizzard forum after a WoW patch/upgrade.

So I wonder how other developers maintain a rather healty community. Even games like LoL with way more players manage to have moderated forums without drowning in toxic waste. Just GW seems to be unable to interact. That is fun as a lot of people claim communication ist the key to a fun game and talk about "gamer autism" while the developers attitude seems to be exactly the opposite of what they expect from their players.

An interesting question. I honestly think that a majority in the GW house honestly do not understand how the internet works in both supporting and killing a community. In the boards for LoL or Blizzard, they have teams dedicated to removing toxic members, even though they keep coming back.

GW had the same thing. Ban the toxic members, who then reregistered under different IDs, and started all over again. GW got tired of it and left it to Nurgle instead of devoting the resources of a team to maintain it. It was a business decision based on their perceived needs and devotion of resources.

Amazing frequenzy? Are you serious? Ther was ONE faq with 7th editon. And this ONE Faq did not even cover any of the questions asked.
Burning questions at this time were: "How does spell familiar work under the new rules" "Does chaos focus count for the one power marked psykers must have"

Answer: Baleflamers now have a 45° Fire Arc

How limited your experience or knowledge must be. The FAQ for the Tau 6th Edition codex was released 3-4 times in one month. The same team also relegated the Hell Drake weapon to being on a turret which lasted till 7th's FAQ... So, speed of release does not always equal efficacy of response nor guarantee a reduction in vitriol.

Charon

07-28-2015, 03:22 PM

How limited your experience or knowledge must be. The FAQ for the Tau 6th Edition codex was released 3-4 times in one month. The same team also relegated the Hell Drake weapon to being on a turret which lasted till 7th's FAQ... So, speed of release does not always equal efficacy of response nor guarantee a reduction in vitriol.

Which was the only one.
Heldrake FAQ came out shortly after the CSM codex hit. Which was the start of 6th edition. Next FAQ was in 7th turning the turret to a front mounted weapon. Just because there was ONE codex that got quite a few updates it does not mean EVERY codex got the same treatment.

Charistoph

07-28-2015, 04:29 PM

Which was the only one.
Heldrake FAQ came out shortly after the CSM codex hit. Which was the start of 6th edition. Next FAQ was in 7th turning the turret to a front mounted weapon. Just because there was ONE codex that got quite a few updates it does not mean EVERY codex got the same treatment.

No, I do believe Chaos Marines did get a couple in 6th, but none changed the first Heldrake definition.

It still disproves your point about frequent FAQs providing less bite back. The paradigm has to change before effective FAQs can be written. The team that did the Heldrake definition for a turret didn't think it was wrong, so they didn't even look back at it until 7th Edition's review came up.

Part of it is proper community interaction, which is not likely to happen at this point due to a very vitriolic group out there. Another part is to actually start mapping out their rules and study their interactions before deploying them or give the responsibility to a group that will.

daboarder

07-28-2015, 05:37 PM

No, I do believe Chaos Marines did get a couple in 6th, but none changed the first Heldrake definition.

It still disproves your point about frequent FAQs providing less bite back. The paradigm has to change before effective FAQs can be written. The team that did the Heldrake definition for a turret didn't think it was wrong, so they didn't even look back at it until 7th Edition's review came up.

Part of it is proper community interaction, which is not likely to happen at this point due to a very vitriolic group out there. Another part is to actually start mapping out their rules and study their interactions before deploying them or give the responsibility to a group that will.

There was a peroid during mid 6th where we were getting an FAQ about 3-4 months after each codex, I think it lasted about 4 FAQs? and they were not half bad either

Sicarius182Uk

04-05-2016, 08:38 PM

You should learn all of those.

- - - Updated - - -

"Knowledge is power guard it well" =][=

grimmas

04-06-2016, 01:49 AM

17969

Haha I've been dying to use that.