Jump to content
Welcome Guest!

Join us now to get access to all our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, and so, so much more. It's also quick and totally free, so what are you waiting for?

Major

GHB2017 - Dealing With Change(s) - an important read!

41 posts in this topic

Oppenheimer    179
11 hours ago, Major said:

Im really glad this sparked so much discussion, its great to see. I am really interested to see/hear any thoughts from the rest of the community here seeming as it is so large.

I don't want to be too negative because I know Ben doesn't allow that here but you asked for more feedback so here it is.

I was new to AoS in 8e and wasn't around for all of the changes I'm supposed to expect, except for AoS. AoS as massive a change as it was didn't make any models invalid so I didn't realise that was something GW did. I'm an environmentalist at heart and so the idea that I have bought and painted permanent plastic miniatures only to have them become fit for the trash after a number of years is not OK with me. 

I wish I had put 2 and 2 together before spending 10s of thousands on multiple GW armies. 

So my only choice is to play friendly games with the old scrolls so that all my models still have a place in the game and make my own estimations about how points for compendium should be lowered to match the rest of the new points for existing models so that it all remains balanced. I created a series of revised Bret scrolls and points to keep them competitive for example. 

Other than that I am looking to start gaming with other companies where the turnover is less expected. I will be decreasing the amount of time spent on AoS somewhat and the amount of money I spend dramatically and focus elsewhere (Malifaux, Frostgrave and Kings of War are where I'm looking now).

It's sad because I love GWs miniatures and the streamlined but still fluffy rules of AoS but cannot abide the wastefulness of planned obsolescence.

Edited by Oppenheimer
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Screwface    41
6 hours ago, MrCharisma said:

By changing nothing, nothing changes.

AM and TR.jpg

That quote is the biggest deepity. 

Edited by Screwface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naishy    26

As mentioned earler in this thread, GW is a company that makes money by exploiting it IP.  The way the game develops is very similar to that of a collectable card game like Magic the Gathering, development cycles are constant, there will always be the new "thing" on the horizen.  In Magic new sets come out creating a new meta, usurping the old meta and providing new opportunities for old decks.

The beauty of this game is that you can use models you have had in your attic for 20 years and find rules to support them.  What you cannot do is walk into a match play event and expect to go toe-to-toe with some of the newest armies on the scene.

Edited by Naishy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cerlin    87

I am very new to the hobby, but I find change to be the fun part of it.  If they were not changing anything I would hazard a guess that even more people would be upset.

I do not think that I have any right to old models I bought to work forever. I may have to find another game to use them in and that is life.

People seem upset that points dont equate to a ln always 50 percent chance to win, but it could never work that way. Some armies are hard counters to the one you brought. Even if each army had exactly the same rules, but different composition, this would still happen. That is even before we consider the skill in playing the game itself. If you are bad at placement and movement tactics, and I am better, and we both roll average, Ill probably win. Point systems cannot account for that. 

Perhaps people need to use 100 to 300 point ranges for handicaps? Or for compendium lists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thomas Lyons    840
On September 4, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Tittliewinks22 said:

Only change that has left a sour taste in my mouth was the Kharadron Thunderers.

I refuse to accept or acknowledge the excuse of "we changed the warscroll to match what comes in the box" when stuff like Stormfeinds and even the arkanaut company don't follow suit. 

Having a complete warscroll change that invalidates a 4 month old book that people spent hundreds on to build according to the presumed play-tested rules is laughable.  Not to mention they still sell the damn unit cards on their website without this change.

This.

On September 4, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Major said:

maybe some of the above steps could help with that Thunderers problem your having? I think it was an ok change...

Because you clearly didn't spend hundreds of dollars on Thunderers boxes that will never hit the table.

On September 5, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Auticus said:

A big part of getting angry at the new rules is simply GW has a decades honored practice of invalidating your army to bring forth new armies that are the hotness...   

Except most of us didn't think these invalidations would happen 3 months after release...

On September 5, 2017 at 11:14 AM, SuperHappyTime said:

Personally, I'm more annoyed with "Sunshine Pumpers" than I am with the Negative Nancys. I've seen more threads and heard more podcast/youtube rants about people complaining than I have actual complainers. Maybe Ben is doing a good job of deleting complaint threads down, I dunno. 

Contrary to popular belief, it's beneficial to everyone that someone complains and voices concern, when it's needed. If no one voiced concern about a lack of balancing structure (aka Points, because "Don't be a ******" doesn't usually work for pickup games), we may not have points today (or at least in the timely manner in which we received them).

This x100.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auticus    1,021
29 minutes ago, Cerlin said:

I am very new to the hobby, but I find change to be the fun part of it.  If they were not changing anything I would hazard a guess that even more people would be upset.

I do not think that I have any right to old models I bought to work forever. I may have to find another game to use them in and that is life.

People seem upset that points dont equate to a ln always 50 percent chance to win, but it could never work that way. Some armies are hard counters to the one you brought. Even if each army had exactly the same rules, but different composition, this would still happen. That is even before we consider the skill in playing the game itself. If you are bad at placement and movement tactics, and I am better, and we both roll average, Ill probably win. Point systems cannot account for that. 

Perhaps people need to use 100 to 300 point ranges for handicaps? Or for compendium lists?

In a system where extreme list building would be punished or not be as effective, you could get closer to seeing more take all comers armies than you do today (in either of GW's systems).  There was a time a decade or so ago that take all comers armies were more common, because extreme builds would be punished by drawing the wrong scenario.  That changed around 2009/2010.

You'll never get a 50/50 shot of winning, and I don't think that is what most people expect.  What most laymen expect is that they buy and paint up 2000 points and not get steam rolled in 2 turns because their list isn't an extreme rock, extreme paper, or extreme scissor.  

You know one thing I like?  THe open war cards.  Because you can gift a player that brings a Take all comers list with a sudden death card if he's matched up against a hard counter army, and then it becomes an exciting game again.

Except most of us didn't think these invalidations would happen 3 months after release...

I bought the  vampire counts 1999.  That book was brand new and invalidated six months later.  GW has since done that a few times.  When I was a tournament gamer I was always cautious about buying any new army so close to new rules because I've seen people (and myself) get burned time and time again by that.

Edited by Auticus
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played Warhammer 40K from 5th Edition all the way through 7th Edtion, and I can tell you that change is going to happen, and the best you can do is try to enjoy the game.  My Imperial Guard and Space Wolves/Marines had positions all over the board on effectiveness and "competitiveness" over the years.  I was taking Ogryns because they were cool to me.  I took Thunderwolf Cavalry when the kits were brand new and they weren't overpowered.  I would bring an Imperial Knight with my Space Marines, and use Land Speeders as fire support.  Some of my favorite kits have been the underpowered weaklings for the past 7 years.

How am I affected by the changes in the GH2017?  Not much, actually.  With the points discounts on units and increase on Battalions, my entire  playable Destruction army went down 10 points in total.  That's right, TEN.  ONE-ZERO.  I can safely say that I have never had an army have such a small percentage-change in points between a major update like this before.  As such, my army is basically the exact same in construction, and looks to play similarly once I get a chance to play the GH2017 rules.  Granted, I play Ironjawz, and the army is basically move-forward-and-crump-things, but that's what drew me to the army initially: Orky simplicity!  Waaagh!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shoe    91

I reject the changes I don't like. If someone really has a problem with me using old warscrolls with my metal wanderer army, they can pick one of my other armies to fight. 

While I do pay them to write rules for me, occasionally GW goes a direction I can't follow. I'm going to complete my project anyways, with or without their support. I don't need their permission to have fun.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Auticus said:

Do you have a TLDR for that video?

Or a summary for those of us who can only read the forums while at work and whose said work has blocked YouTube?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Major    35
On 9/7/2017 at 4:51 AM, Thomas Lyons said:

Because you clearly didn't spend hundreds of dollars on Thunderers boxes that will never hit the table.

@Thomas Lyons I wish I could say you were right, however, I did indeed. $210 to be exact :( Since GHB2017 they have hit table twice, won once and a couple of em will be in a game of skirmish today. Maybe I've just gotten used to this happening (which may not always be a good thing) so am no longer surprised when it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Auticus said:

Do you have a TLDR for that video?

Regarding the KO, apparently in a panel the designers of the KO book full on admitted that it was a mistake.  They did not have the full kitted out miniatures yet and built the warscroll around a configuration that was not on the table for the kit.  The book was already going to press and so they adjusted it on this round of errata.  The guys on Warhammer Weekly were understanding to a point but felt that the mea culpa should have come quicker but in the end that there was no conspiracy to get people to try to get more kits just for the one weapon configuration... it was never meant to be.   They did not go into any other changes than that.

They talk about a lot of other things as well that you might like but mostly in cursory fashion including that the Narrative event at Nova was massively popular and that it was supposed to be over by midnight but they kept playing until 2:30 AM because everyone was so into it (and using treachery cards and what not as well).

They went over a lot of Shadespire stuff as well and shared lots of details about the decks, it will be a seasonal event.. the four factions we see now are probably it for initial launch but still no talk or confirmation about whether the warbands are customizable.

They spoke quite a bit about the next two years being huge for AoS starting with the Deathrattle stuff the other side of Christmas and the big campaign they teased is much bigger than just Death, it should have a lot of stuff to move the entire story along.  They hinted that the design team really doesn't know what to do with humans in the AoS world for the long run.  Discussion came up that they could actually fit into every grand alliance in some way but at this time that is not planned.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auticus    1,021

Thats pretty sweet.  I'm stoked that the narrative event at NOVA went over so well.  Thanks for sharing the summary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have appreciated the last two (which are the first two I have seen of it).  It is cool to get info on what transpires at the Tournaments and Conventions I cant get to, especially the panels with the designers and staff at GW as well as insight from impassioned AoS fans.

Has it come up at all in what you and Vince have heard regarding customizable warbands in Shadespire?  I don't love deck building so that will be the make or break trait of that system for me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×