AoS News Coming Tomorrow (April 25)

[Erik Setzer]

via Scanner (http://forum.spikeybits.com/showthread.php?20765-Age-of-Sigmar-Warhammer-Fantasy-9th-Rumors-Explosion&p=240318&viewfull=1#post240318) 4-27-2016


18267


----------------------Original Post Below-------------------



GW teasing this morning that there'll be big news tomorrow:

"In 24 hours time, we’ll be announcing the most exciting news for Warhammer Age of Sigmar since its launch. Gaming in the Mortal Realms will never be the same again."

https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/photos/a.452227281640737.1073741828.452117934985005/469052769958188/?type=3

Anyone want to take guesses? I don't remember hearing any rumors like this. Maybe one slipped under the rumor mill?

[Mr Mystery]

Not a clue.

But I'm Defo intrigued.

[Auticus]

My bet is its the new point system for their ranking system.

[Mr Mystery]

Points seem too obvious.

I'm wondering if it might be a variant rules set of some kind?

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

Price drop for those of that aren't middle class!

Trolling aside, I'd expect a variant rule set for tournaments maybe.

[Trojan66]

An expansion to the rule set maybe, a points system possibly, the AOS and 40k worlds coming together...god I hope not

[Dyolfnai]

Is anyone else having trouble getting the rules up on the AoS app? Could be a hint, or just a rubbish phone 🤔

[Mr Mystery]

Just checked, I think it's your phone :p

[Dyolfnai]

Oh well! Just funny everything else works ok but click on the rules icon and I get thrown off, stupid phone getting me all excited!

[Erik Setzer]

https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/photos/a.452227281640737.1073741828.452117934985005/469380939925371/?type=3&permPage=1

HA! They ARE doing a points system!

So there's three options:

Open Play - Put whatever you want on the table.
Narrative Play - Scenarios, Campaigns, etc.
Matched Play - For "tournaments and competitive games," and they even call out points

So hey, there's options! Always a good thing. Hopefully they can be mixed, too, i.e. a campaign using points.

Also have to say, after seeing so many "AoS fans" (in quotation marks for a reason) attacking people for daring to suggest it might be points (because if GW decided points weren't needed, then the game must never have points!), and then here we are, GW's doing points. Those people are probably going to be doing some serious backpedaling this morning.

[Mr Mystery]

Interesting stuff.

Not fussed for points meself, but variety is rarely a poor thing.

[grimmas]

https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/photos/a.452227281640737.1073741828.452117934985005/469380939925371/?type=3&permPage=1

HA! They ARE doing a points system!

So there's three options:

Open Play - Put whatever you want on the table.
Narrative Play - Scenarios, Campaigns, etc.
Matched Play - For "tournaments and competitive games," and they even call out points

So hey, there's options! Always a good thing. Hopefully they can be mixed, too, i.e. a campaign using points.

Also have to say, after seeing so many "AoS fans" (in quotation marks for a reason) attacking people for daring to suggest it might be points (because if GW decided points weren't needed, then the game must never have points!), and then here we are, GW's doing points. Those people are probably going to be doing some serious backpedaling this morning.

Well I suggest that they still wouldn't need points to run their games and the open/narrative style play is apparently still going to be catered for.

I do agree that options are good, what is very nice to see is that they are doing different things for different parts of the customer base. Very sensible.

[Auticus]

Options are good but history has shown that the other two options are going to be very difficult to get to use now that points are back. They are an illusion of options at that point.

[grimmas]

Options are good but history has shown that the other two options are going to be very difficult to get to use now that points are back. They are an illusion of options at that point.

That's a definite worry. Hopefully enough people will have had taste of the good life so we won't totally go back to the days of two equally pointed armies lining up on planet no scenery for no particular reason just to kill each other

[Auticus]

I wish I wasn't so cynical but I highly doubt it. My shop is already this (they use wounds). Now it'll be points.

"Hey want to do this scenario?"

"No, that scenario isn't fair or balanced"

This will become common once again.

[grimmas]

Yep

I didn't used to let people play unless they used a scenario, which was probably an abuse of my position at the time but I didn't and still don't care.

I even put them in the tournaments l ran, you should have the faces when the second round was a cities of death scenario. They all enjoyed themselves though and came back for more.

[Asymmetrical Xeno]

I'm ok with the system as it is for now but yeah options are a good thing, and it shows that people do play the game in different ways so having the different modes for that is a good idea, ill stick with open play as I only play the game with a few select people who are also casuals like myself. I wish the pro and anti AoS sides would lay off each other generally though, this forum seems friendlier compared to a lot of other places though at least (generally speaking) Speaking personally, I don't care if people hate AoS or think it sucks - doesn't effect my enjoyment or life, so each to their own.

[Erik Setzer]

I'm not sure I get the concern here.

You believe that no-points is the superior way to play, the "good life." But then you feel like if people have another option they'll pick that option instead of what you feel is the superior option, and so many people will people the "inferior" option that the "superior" option won't be available.

Well, if people pick one option in such an overwhelming majority, then that's what the general playerbase feels is the superior option. If it's clearly not a better option, then people won't use it.

If your friends are of like mind with you, you'll be able to play the way you want.

If you're concerned that having options will cause problems getting games outside of your personal group, well, you've just caught on to one of the issues that's been around since the game started and people said "It's great because you can make up your own rules!" Difference is, in this case they're all official options, so there's less chance of Group A and Group B having two completely different methods of achieving the same results.

Really, I think I'm just finding a long way to say that if you find that so many people want to use points that you can't get a game without them, then clearly no-points wasn't "the good life" and people really do prefer some balance in their games. It's rather off-putting to see an elitist attitude toward the use of points, and the attitude that if people choose to go that route, even your own gaming mates, they're making the "wrong" choice.

How is the "pro-AoS" crowd the ones to jump on this and make it out to be something potentially negative? What happened to "Wait and see, you might like it!" or "Give it a try!" or any of the other things we've heard the last few months? The game gives options - OPTIONS! - to be more inclusive and people act like it's suddenly the end of the game.

- - - Updated - - -


I wish the pro and anti AoS sides would lay off each other generally though

I doubt it's so much "pro and anti AoS sides." I think it's mostly trolls that act like they're on either "side."

And then there's the people who might enjoy the game, but are willing to comment on where they think improvement could be had or there might be issues, and end up labeled "anti-AoS" for not being rabidly "pro-AoS." It's the kind of extremes I thought only existed in politics.

[grimmas]

Points or no points is of no concern to me

I just happen to agree with Auticus' concern that tournament style play could stifle the use of scenarios in his community. Something he has mentioned from the start. I'd also point out he did make his own point system so he's hardly a points hater. The degeneration into mindless line up and kill battles is something that happens and it's boring and something that damaged WFB in the end. Let's not forget the wailing and gnashing of teeth by balancemongers (tm Grimmas) over unbound in 40K.

Options are a good thing. How the "community" repsonds to them is another thing entirely.

Open and Narative/scenario play already exists and the Narrative/scenario play is very popular amough the poeple who actually play AoS. It's also somthing that isn't exclusive of the use of points.

[Kirsten]

I am liking the new models, willing to embrace it as a system, but actually playing the game was 100% dependant on it getting points values. so now I am very happy indeed.

[Auticus]

Yeah - I don't think points are bad. I spent the last nine months working heavily on a point comp that just happened to not work out very well because I didn't have a GT behind it.

However I do think tournament culture will begin seeping back into AOS which kills everything not associated with tournament culture. Want to run those scenarios that are unbalanced? Good luck! Twenty years of tournament culture has taught me that, at least in North America, getting to do narrative scenarios is a massive challenge when everyone around you wants to do tournament pitched battle because otherwise "its not fair".

Erik is spot on though - if thats what the people want then thats what the people want. Trying to change that is pointless, and this is where I get off the GW bus and find something else to do with my time.

[Erik Setzer]

Personally, I'm more interested in the two new systems of play, Matched and Narrative. Narrative might not use points, but it sounds like it could make for some interesting matches. Open Play, from what I've seen (and this is just local community, so not at large, but since I play locally it affects my decision), tends to be "place your wallet on the table and see who has more disposable income."

YMMV, of course.

[Auticus]

I have to think that narrative play is simply using the scenarios in the campaign books as they exist today, which where I am is not popular. (People here want pitched battle with points)

[Erik Setzer]

It suggested some type of campaign system, so that might be good.

I think the biggest problem with the scenarios in the books is that you have to buy the books to have access to them, and some of the books are kind of cost-prohibitive.

It'd also be good to have more generic "scenarios." Kind of like 40K's missions, but roll back to the 3rd edition rulebook's style of missions, where there were different objectives to achieve. That'd be pretty fun. Or even the secret objectives of 40K2 (which they did a variant of for 40K3 or 4). Then it's not as "restrictive," and usually easier to talk people into trying new versions of playing.

[Haighus]

Sort of like asymmetric missions that are easier to fit to a narrative tune?

[Auticus]

You can buy the scenarios from the app separate.

The reasons given for not playing the scenarios where I am (so this only applies to my community)

* don't want to spend *any* money at all, even $5 for a scenario is too much
* don't want to have to build an army and then have a scenario invalidate it. want to stick with scenarios my army is built for
* want a standard scenario for pick up games, don't want to have to learn rules for other scenarios

[Erik Setzer]

Well, when part of the selling point for the game is "the rules are free," I can kind of understand feeling misled if they have to pay for scenarios.

I think generic scenario-style missions would be a good option. You can wrap a narrative around them, maybe even string them together. I.e. a mission like Relic where you have to capture an item, followed by something like the old Ambush mission where the guys who grabbed the item are now trying to escape with it (or escape after failing to secure it). You could do those with Open Play or Matched Play, but they'd still be "Narrative Play."

[silashand]

Erik is spot on though - if thats what the people want then thats what the people want. Trying to change that is pointless, and this is where I get off the GW bus and find something else to do with my time.

This has been true for as long as I have been playing games. The mistake with AoS was to try and force people to play the way they (GW) wanted them to rather than ask most players what they actually wanted from the system. I agree finding players to engage in asymmetric gaming is difficult sometimes and that competitive play styles tend to dominate. However, I have actually found that players will do the former on occasion, it just takes a lot of work on the part of the organizer to engage and get people interested. It does work, though usually only for one-off games. Most people play games because they want a competitive element, even if that element may be somewhat limited. "Games" without that capability are rarely popular in my experience. JMO though...


Really, I think I'm just finding a long way to say that if you find that so many people want to use points that you can't get a game without them, then clearly no-points wasn't "the good life" and people really do prefer some balance in their games. It's rather off-putting to see an elitist attitude toward the use of points, and the attitude that if people choose to go that route, even your own gaming mates, they're making the "wrong" choice.

How is the "pro-AoS" crowd the ones to jump on this and make it out to be something potentially negative? What happened to "Wait and see, you might like it!" or "Give it a try!" or any of the other things we've heard the last few months? The game gives options - OPTIONS! - to be more inclusive and people act like it's suddenly the end of the game.


This is the attitude the fluff players have had for as far back as I can remember. In 30 years of gaming by far the only people I ever heard tell me if I didn't like the way the rules were then I should just leave and go play something else were fluff players. If people didn't play their way they were wrong. I almost never heard the so-called tourney crown say that. Their attitude was do whatever you want as long as it's in the rules. AoS forced people to play in such a non-competitive style because there was no other alternative. Now that some form of balance may be coming back it is somehow the end of the world because the competitive players they hated so much might come back to play again and end up dominating the player base like they do in every other game system. IMO AoS gave the fluff crowd exactly what they wanted so they were more than willing to say "just give it a try!" Unfortunately, the one thing they never wanted to admit was that they might possibly be in the minority when it came to what the game should be about so when most players dumped it instead they were left with only those who thought and played the way they did. Honestly, for the fluff players AoS probably is a "Golden Age" of sorts. Unfortunately, from a gaming standpoint they were the ones proven wrong because no one else wanted to play it and thus from a business standpoint it is unsupportable. After having to listen to the shills for so long I have almost no sympathy left for them. Because after finally convincing GW they were what the hobby was all about it resulted in GW killing one game system and replacing it with something far worse overall. They got what they wanted and it essentially killed the GW fantasy gaming community because of it.

[Mr Mystery]

Got to say, I'm baffled at those objecting to any points based system.

Whilst I personally am happy as is, it's similar to me demanding my 40k opponents only ever play FoC or Unbound etc.

Seriously, what's the big deal? Narrative stuff is my prime enjoyment, but points don't prevent that, if it's a 'balanced' scenario (others can be well skewed in army sizes, because they can similarly skew the victory conditions).

Just like the plethora of ways to play 40k, straight points are likely to become the default way to play for pick up games - and there's nothing wrong with that. So use it as a conduit to a new gaming circle. Once you've played a few game with peeps 'strictly by the book', you'll not have a random gaming partner, but a friend - if they're fun to play against.

If they're no fun to play against in strict points, count yourself lucky that you dodged a bullet, as I can pretty much guarantee you they'd be even less fun in scenario or open play.

So chill. Relax. Open up to various new ways of playing. See what they're actually like before deciding it's not for you (for those familiar with my forum droolings, this is the same tack I took about AoS when it first came out).

As for Auticus....you and those others who took task in hand and had a crack at giving a points option, I salute you and your efforts. Even though I never used them, you're exactly the kind of person this hobby is all about. You put in more than you get out, and never quibbled about it.

Now for those crowing and tossing off, the sort who might bill this as 'an embarrassing about face LOLOLOLOL GW LRN2BSNS'....*

You *****ed, pissed and moaned when it came out. In fact, many of you *****ed, pissed and moaned before you knew anything factual about the game. Some even outright lied about having insider information.

But guess what? If we assume this is an about face, and wasn't originally planned (possible, but little solid evidence either way) then GW are now listening. So why the crowing? If you don't enjoy the game, then leave it be. If the forthcoming points system (apparently SCGT) is what you wanted? Then ace cakes.

But for those who will now simply shift their goalposts.....do you seriously have nothing better to do with your life?

*not the same as those welcoming the change, feeling it what the game needed.

[Mr Mystery]

Short update with actual informations.

This has been posted by a couple of sources on the FB AoS group, but sadly I can't yet vouch for accuracy.

Following a Manager's Meeting at Lenton (this much is correct in terms of timing) these new ways to play will be a book called The General's Handbook.

Full points system in it.

Also, seems Heelenhammer will be doing (or have done) a podcast all about it, and their involvement. Feedback from those guys is very positive (though seeing they got to work on it, perhaps not surprising!)

[Auticus]

Yes the points are in a book. Which means they won't be changed, so any min/max exploits will stay until a new edition / revision (much like how every GW game ever made has been)

[Mr Mystery]

It's a points system already used at large tournaments, and no doubt well play tested prior, by more than the handful of playtesters at GW's disposal, so hopefully will be pretty solid.

Any adjustments can easily be done via FAQs and in-App updates (this might be the first book I buy through the app, as it's then really portable)

[grimmas]

Due to the lower numbers of options for AoS units as opposed to 40K and the fact options generally don't cause massive changes I'm quietly confident that it'll be quite good. From what I've seen on Facebook the narative system will be much more involved than just playing scenarios so I suspect it will appeal to the the faithful

It won't be the exact system in already in use and that has been confirmed by both GW and the organisers.

[Auticus]

It's a points system already used at large tournaments, and no doubt well play tested prior, by more than the handful of playtesters at GW's disposal, so hopefully will be pretty solid.

Any adjustments can easily be done via FAQs and in-App updates (this might be the first book I buy through the app, as it's then really portable)

ah but its not. I was told yesterday by the AOS FB admin directly via a reply that its not SCGT points. Its GWs own points that the SCGT guys got to preview and give feedback on. No one has used this system yet.

As to the rest, I'm sitting out and will watch and see. My community is notoriously very competitive and if I can't get in any narrative games with AOS any longer, I will need to find a different game. Thats not saying it *will* happen this way, but the past twenty years have shown that getting in narrative games is a very challenging business when there are tournament points and scenarios people would rather use.

[Mr Mystery]

I stand corrected :)

This is all really quite intriguing - to the best of my knowledge, GW have never interacted with their player base at this level. It's one thing to listen to demand, and another thing to actively consult tournament organisers and bring them in on the project.

Which in turn means, we don't know where this particular seam of oddities is going to stop! Returned to FB, SG coming back, now this? Where will it end? Can there be a naturally limit to such interaction?

[Kirsten]

Easier to balance a system where each unit has its' own hit and wound rolls that don't get compared to the target

[Mr Mystery]

True that. '1 point per attack, 5+ to hit 1 point, 5+ to wound 1 point, 1 point per damage' etc.

Flat calculation rates work there far better than with the myriad of stuff in 40k.

[Auticus]

Thats how the azyr formula worked. Everything flat like that was plugged into the same formula.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm not even sure you need to overly tweak the points for units that get size bonuses.

Not only is it rare they become tougher to kill (just more killy), but in order to get that bonus, you're putting a lot of eggs in one basket, and not spending them elsewhere on units which don't need numbers to be 'ard, so there's a sort of built in penalty already (at least in my opinion :) ).

The larger the unit, the more unwieldy it becomes, and the fewer models can actually get to fight - so whilst the attack you do get are significantly improved, it's not as if say, all 30 Empire Spearmen are getting to prod away at the enemy. Compare to say, Rotbringer Blightkings who are well 'ard as is, and don't tend to come in high numbers. It's far more likely that every point I spend on them will have a direct say - whereas the Empire Spearmen can rapidly lose their buff to judicious ranged and spell damage.

Really intrigued to see how this all works out. Will they go for the illusional economy WM did by having things like 'one and two points', or continue in the familiar GW vein?

[grimmas]

I know one of the systems folded because they couldn't legislate for costing synergy between units. I'm not too fussed with that as that seems to be more about the player than the unit and it think you're allowed to be a better player.

[Mr Mystery]

That sort of synergy is tricky.

Consider the Bloodsecrator.

If he's whipping up a frenzy with Blood Warriors, well, that's pretty good. He might give your Khororoororororrogareth an extra attack. Big whoop, huh?

But if it's the Cultist level dudes? He's actually doubling their attack output - and if that unit is surrounded in a protracted melee, that can be horrific for the opponent.

Trick would be to not make him so attractively pointed that he's an auto-include, but not so exorbitantly costed he's only taken with the cultist level dudes and nobody else - you might as well just make him a unit upgrade at that point.

Add in a Bloodstoker, and it gets even more pokey. Those two working in concert turn Bloodreavers into something far more powerful than they currently are.

[Auticus]

They mentioned "2000 points" so it seems they are going back to trying precision balance again.

[odinsgrandson]

Really intrigued to see how this all works out. Will they go for the illusional economy WM did by having things like 'one and two points', or continue in the familiar GW vein?


I do wonder about the scale of their points, and I'm honestly hoping for numbers like those in WM and Malifaux. The reason for GW's normal pricing numbers is all of the wargear and weapon options that even lowly infantry might have. Age of Sigmar doesn't have nearly so many options.

The wonderful thing about games with small numbers is how interchangeable the units are in a force (ie, this unit for 5 points can be swapped for anything else at 5 points, or a 3 and a 2- all of which are easy to come by). And how fast it is to make an army- it is just a few minutes to adjust to your opponent's level.

Adding up a 3000 point Warhammer FB force can take quite a bit of time, and I do think it was nice for AoS to address this issue. Even if it did chuck the baby out the window with it. Hopefully, they can bring back the baby without anything unpleasant.



I also wonder if there will be strict army lists or required units. GW's games have always had some sort of artificial balancing of the army- to make sure that you don't have a small band of elite heroes and monsters on the table.

But if it could be balanced, I'd love to try out a band of rampaging giants, or a warband of greater daemons. The lack of balance in the game made me think that a project like this would be awful to actually play.

[Mr Mystery]

Really need to listen to the Podcast!

- - - Updated - - -


I do wonder. The reason for GW's pricing numbers is all of the wargear and weapon options that even lowly infantry might have. Age of Sigmar doesn't have nearly so many options.

The wonderful thing about games with small numbers is how interchangeable the units are in a force (ie, this unit for 5 points can be swapped for anything else at 5 points, or a 3 and a 2- all of which are easy to come by). And how fast it is to make an army.

Adding up a 3000 point Warhammer FB force can take quite a bit of time, and I do think it was nice for AoS to address this. Even if it did throw out the baby along with the bathwater. Hopefully, they can bring back the baby without anything unpleasant.



I also wonder if there will be strict army lists or required units. If it could be balanced, I'd love to try out a band of rampaging giants, or a warband of greater daemons. The lack of balance in the game made me think that a project like this would be awful to actually play.

I see what you mean - but I've always just written my units as 'chunks' for an army. So in 8th Ed, I knew how I wanted my 18 strong units of Ironguts and Bulls, so just kept those cut and pastable. Smaller units were also worked up (so bare minimum for me was 6 strong, full command, ergo X or Y points).

I hope they keep the army selection itself quite open. Some armies depend on their characters more than others - and dear lord summoning casters need to be expensive, or summoning otherwise addressed, given the FAQ.

[Erik Setzer]

I stand corrected :)

This is all really quite intriguing - to the best of my knowledge, GW have never interacted with their player base at this level. It's one thing to listen to demand, and another thing to actively consult tournament organisers and bring them in on the project.

Which in turn means, we don't know where this particular seam of oddities is going to stop! Returned to FB, SG coming back, now this? Where will it end? Can there be a naturally limit to such interaction?

Never? Well, okay, maybe you haven't been around all this time, so fair enough if you don't recall.

One of the things I loved about Battlefleet Gothic was Andy Chambers getting on the mailing list for it and not only answering questions, but providing comments on why certain things were done, and giving previews of upcoming rules to get feedback on them.

The only reason the company wasn't on social media at the time was it didn't exist. But heck, they used to have a magazine dedicated to the players, even. They had a monthly email newsletter with news, tips submitted by players, stuff like that. GW employees were scattered around mailing lists (and I think some forums, too, such that they existed at the time).

Then they shuttered themselves in their bunker, decided stuffy old men in suits that don't actually play games or even paint figures knew best, and went so hardcore bunker mentality they stopped talking to their own employees even.

It's nice to see them come back out of their shell, and kudos for that, and I hope they listen more and Rountree understands he made a promise he needs to break for the good of the company, but it's not really something unheard of. Though I guess it's been a while, so it's easy for people to forget or have not experienced it.

Bugger, I feel old now.

- - - Updated - - -


Got to say, I'm baffled at those objecting to any points based system.

The worst example I saw of this was someone gleefully stating that GW got rid of points and wouldn't bring them back in order to "get rid of competitive players" and people who don't like it - "haters" - weren't wanted by GW and GW was happy to see them gone. And that would be a really stupid attitude for the company to have, and I doubt they had that attitude (why would you ever want to see a large number of customers leave for another company?!?), but it shows the attitude some people had.

But it's like any issue really, especially where opinions might get passionate (and we gamer nerds are a passionate bunch about our hobby)... there's bound to be troll-like behavior on both sides.

I see this as a positive step. Even if it was done to respond to something negative (the floated explanation it was to combat lagging sales, which I was told by a GW manager is the reason the Start Collecting! boxes exist, another positive that came from a negative), I think the focus should be more on the positive result, not quibbling over whether the reasoning was negative or not.

[grimmas]

Just listening to the podcast. Crikey and I thought I was a fan boy 🙂. Have listen folks really really interesting. Just a couple off notes, it was good hearing the Jervis love because, having met him, he is a really nice bloke and seriously keen gamer who gets a lot of unfair stick on the internet. Also for information the board room is actually called the High Lords of Terra Suite (I sh*t you not).

As a side note the first ever podcast I've listened too. The presenters were really good.

I'm very excited seems we're all getting something from this.

- - - Updated - - -


Never? Well, okay, maybe you haven't been around all this time, so fair enough if you don't recall.

One of the things I loved about Battlefleet Gothic was Andy Chambers getting on the mailing list for it and not only answering questions, but providing comments on why certain things were done, and giving previews of upcoming rules to get feedback on them.

The only reason the company wasn't on social media at the time was it didn't exist. But heck, they used to have a magazine dedicated to the players, even. They had a monthly email newsletter with news, tips submitted by players, stuff like that. GW employees were scattered around mailing lists (and I think some forums, too, such that they existed at the time).

Then they shuttered themselves in their bunker, decided stuffy old men in suits that don't actually play games or even paint figures knew best, and went so hardcore bunker mentality they stopped talking to their own employees even.

It's nice to see them come back out of their shell, and kudos for that, and I hope they listen more and Rountree understands he made a promise he needs to break for the good of the company, but it's not really something unheard of. Though I guess it's been a while, so it's easy for people to forget or have not experienced it.

Bugger, I feel old now.

- - - Updated - - -



The worst example I saw of this was someone gleefully stating that GW got rid of points and wouldn't bring them back in order to "get rid of competitive players" and people who don't like it - "haters" - weren't wanted by GW and GW was happy to see them gone. And that would be a really stupid attitude for the company to have, and I doubt they had that attitude (why would you ever want to see a large number of customers leave for another company?!?), but it shows the attitude some people had.

But it's like any issue really, especially where opinions might get passionate (and we gamer nerds are a passionate bunch about our hobby)... there's bound to be troll-like behavior on both sides.

I see this as a positive step. Even if it was done to respond to something negative (the floated explanation it was to combat lagging sales, which I was told by a GW manager is the reason the Start Collecting! boxes exist, another positive that came from a negative), I think the focus should be more on the positive result, not quibbling over whether the reasoning was negative or not.

Just to back Erik up GW did trial rules in White Dwarf and asked for feedback before intergtating them into new editions in the past most notably for 2nd and 4th ed 40K

[AdamHarry]

via Scanner (http://forum.spikeybits.com/showthread.php?20765-Age-of-Sigmar-Warhammer-Fantasy-9th-Rumors-Explosion&p=240318&viewfull=1#post240318) 4-27-2016


18267

[Erik Setzer]

RE: Jervis hate - I think part of that started up when people circulated an old article he wrote to try to back up the concept of lack of points. It got all the people upset with the lack of structure in AoS directing their ire at Jervis, even though we have no idea if he was even involved with it.

RE: "High Lords of Terra Suite" - I'd believe it, for two reasons. First, it sounds like something those guys would want to be called, to stroke their egos. (Had to take my shot at the board.) But also, it's a name based on the company's work. In our offices, we have rooms with names like Trayco Room, US Lock Room, SupplyWorks Room (RIP, friend, you were only with us for a short time!), EcoSource Room, Copperfield Room, etc. These are names of either our selling brands or something related to the products we sell. I imagine a lot of companies do that. Wouldn't be surprised if they named the front hall the Cadian Gate and the bathrooms the Eye of Terror (and maybe name the breakroom The Maelstrom).

[Mr Mystery]

High Lords of Terra suite is real. Many days spent there, once upon a time.

And for getting feedback - remember some of those now, including the trial rules for 4th Ed.

[Erik Setzer]

Remembering how far back 4th was makes me feel a bit old, though. Then I remember 3rd... and then all the way back to Rogue Trader. Oof.

Being an "old fart" in the games did net me a free 30th anniversary Marine, though, so there's that.

[grimmas]

High Lords of Terra suite is real. Many days spent there, once upon a time.

And for getting feedback - remember some of those now, including the trial rules for 4th Ed.

Did they still call the management training program the "Squad Leader Program" and the development managers Veteran Sergeants , when you did it? Of course eveyone had a 40K name to go with their job title when I was there, it's a much dafter company that the Internet would have us believe.


More on topic really looking forward to the Summer release after listening to the Heelanhammer podcast the multi style approach is really sounding spot on.

[ShadowRaiku]

Right. I popped into my local GW store on my way home from work, and asked about the whole three ways to play thing and got some pretty interesting news back.

It's a book. It'll contain everything for all three types, and will only cost £15. It'll be dropped on July 23rd. I'm not sure if the date is pre-order or release, but the manager was pretty excited about the whole thing, so yeah. Three months time :D

[Erik Setzer]

but the manager was pretty excited about the whole thing

Well, he should be, because it might increase sales. I'm sure the local manager will be dancing with delight because his sales have fallen off the deep end (even 40K's taken a hit). Given that they could lose their jobs (as the stores get shut down) if quotas aren't met, anything that helps improve sales going through their stores is going to get excitement.

Individual managers might also be excited for the product as gamers, too. But since it should (theoretically, at least, but I'd put it as a safe bet) improve sales, it should be exciting news for all GW managers.

[odinsgrandson]

So, here's a big question:

Will there be any update to the free rules? I mean, people who are into AoS will want to grab the book for sure, but the free rules are a pretty good way to bring in new players, and to be honest, adding point values seems more like finishing their core rules set than adding new modes of play.

Any of the rumors include handing out those rules for free? Because I know a lot of people who are way more likely to check it out in free PDF form than ones who will be buying the book day one.

[Erik Setzer]

I really hope it is available in some kind of free form, even if it's not all the stuff like scenarios and all. I'll still grab the book, but if none of this is available as a free PDF, then it kind of defeats the purpose of being a way to bring in new players or the game's philosophy of free core rules.