General's Handbook 2017 Announced

[BunkhouseBuster]

3 hours ago, shadowgra said:

 without mentioning costs, age of sigmar isn't properly a cheap hobby... i am a student and between time and costs i couldn't keep up with regular patches

I'm a working dad who commutes an hour and a half every work day, and I am in the same boat.  (I play 40K as well, and I just last night got my first of the Index books, and I had to trade models for it since I don't have the cash at this time.)

[rokapoke]

The other big issue with more regular updates (that I don't think has been mentioned yet) is the significant quantity of playtesting that GW has committed to the GHB2 point updates. This is not a process by which they said "this scroll needs to go up by 20 points because it's overpowered/underpointed" but a full-fledged effort to make everything more consistent. You can't make quarterly updates that are worthwhile without the same effort to scale things properly.

[chord]

2 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

The other big issue with more regular updates (that I don't think has been mentioned yet) is the significant quantity of playtesting that GW has committed to the GHB2 point updates. This is not a process by which they said "this scroll needs to go up by 20 points because it's overpowered/underpointed" but a full-fledged effort to make everything more consistent. You can't make quarterly updates that are worthwhile without the same effort to scale things properly.

But last time they mentioned play testing they just really only play test with a select few.  They need to get a wider variety from all over the globe of all different player types.

[rokapoke]

Just now, chord said:

But last time they mentioned play testing they just really only play test with a select few.  They need to get a wider variety from all over the globe of all different player types.

100% true. Which means they likely need a greater period of time to properly measure their adjusted points, which means annual (or maybe semi-annual) is a good plan.

[Trout]

23 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Well we won't have to worry since this discussion is moot.  GW is going with the yearly point release, and we have to take any bad math for an entire year.  Or chase the meta and rebuild our armies every year to powergame as well so we can have engaging games.

I thought you were a narrative player?

[wayniac]

2 minutes ago, Trout said:

I thought you were a narrative player?

The competitive gamers staged a coup.

[Tidings]

47 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I am.  I don't like getting rolled every game though because I brought a narrative list when my opponents all want to powergame and bring LVO lists.

So either be ok with getting rolled every game and told to git gud, or buy the gun to bring to the gun fight.

I feel for ya man. There's a time and place for try-harding. Weekly game night against people who want to play a thematic or fun list is not the time for being competitive. Just drives people out of the hobby, shrinking the player base. If we were in the same area I would happily play thematic matches with ya. 

[Mikosan]

I really can't believe folks are upset about having to wait a year for point changes....wasn't that long ago that these things were fixed longer than most peoples college careers! Heck, my daughter went from diapers to asking for a phone between wood elf updates, lol.   Or that a new edition was expected one year after first GHB.  I recall heads exploding when 40K forced a 7th edition what 2 years after 6th? Now we are banging on about one every year!  It really is a no win situation for GW. 

A yearly update seems entirely reasonable to me. New edition every 3 maybe?  I don't know how GW is supposed to fix these local community problems with changes to core rules or knee ****** point changes based on large individual tournament results. 

[wayniac]

10 minutes ago, Mikosan said:

I really can't believe folks are upset about having to wait a year for point changes....wasn't that long ago that these things were fixed longer than most peoples college careers! Heck, my daughter went from diapers to asking for a phone between wood elf updates, lol.   Or that a new edition was expected one year after first GHB.  I recall heads exploding when 40K forced a 7th edition what 2 years after 6th? Now we are banging on about one every year!  It really is a no win situation for GW. 

A yearly update seems entirely reasonable to me. New edition every 3 maybe?  I don't know how GW is supposed to fix these local community problems with changes to core rules or knee ****** point changes based on large individual tournament results. 

A year seems reasonable when you are used to a decade, but a year is too long for people who are used to other miniatures games with more frequent updates.

[BunkhouseBuster]

12 minutes ago, wayniac said:

A year seems reasonable when you are used to a decade, but a year is too long for people who are used to other miniatures games with more frequent updates.

The moral of the story is that GW is the big corporation out of all the wargames manufacturers out there, and will be criticized no matter what they do, good, bad, or indifferent.

I am content with yearly updates, as that is about as frequently I can take the time to study up the few armies I am interested in.  With just a few hours a month that I can squeeze into the hobby, a yearly update is almost even too much, at least until my familial issues get resolved.

[Mikosan]

And these other miniature games have both a thriving narrative and competitive scene? Where?  Honest question.  As I understand it War machine caters to a competitive crowd, 9th I have read is already criticized for too frequent changes.  All I'm saying is that by this rationale, shooting units get nerfed this time, so melee takes over and uber competitive builds are running roughshod over fluff players again, then what?  Nerf melee units points cost?  This is a cycle that GW can't break for people because  WAAC players will always exist and take advantage where they can whatever the system... Is there a game of anything that could cope with one player bringing a fun fluffy list and the other player bringing OP unit spam and not break down?

 

[Kirjava13]

7 hours ago, Marc Wilson said:

All the arguments for 'patching' or regular updates omit the fact that it takes a good while to build, paint and collect an army; an investment in both time and money. Surely no one wants a scenario where their army is 'nearly there' or 'just need to change one model'.... 'doh, need to change it again... and again.' It would turn the system into a giant hamster wheel, which in my view would be a tremendous short-term commercial success followed by a very large slump as people tire of the total uncertainty, the invalidation of armies, and the need to constantly react to change. Once a year is enough for me, thanks. Be careful what you wish for.

Sure, but I seriously doubt there are going to be that many cases where someone goes, "Oh no, my unit has been rebalanced by 20 points and now it's worthless." The idea of a regular schedule players could plan around would also do a lot to neutralise that, as would common sense and a system akin to what many computer game developers do, ie leave the option to continue using a previous "build" (back to a certain point) available.

Scenario 1: you have a casual game against a friend or associate planned. For some reason you have arranged to do so the day after a patch and not considered that your Skyfires may be neutered a little. You find that you are now a hundred points short. Oh no! Solution: you and your opponent agree, it being a casual game, to either use the previous patch, which surely you both still have the stats for, or you do something else- that hundred points could give you X rerolls, or an extra ability, or something else, I'm not super familiar with the rules. The point being, there are fixes.

Scenario 2: a tournament will take place two weeks after a patch. But that's not enough time to buy and/or build a new unit to replace the old one which is now RUINED FOREVER by this new patch! Oh no! Solution: the tournament organisers, not being idiots, state in advance which patch will be being used and you plan your army accordingly.

"Patching" the game, if done right, is only a positive in a game as flexible as Age of Sigmar was clearly intended to be. You don't like X? Try Y. Or go back to W. 

Edit: I'm not advocating for patches to be monthly, bi-monthly, every six months, annually, whatever. Just that the basic principle is a good one, and by "regular" I mean that is is consistent when the patch occurs precisely so that people can plan for it or anticipate it. I think yearly would be the minimum, though. 

 

[Kamose]

Unfortunately, it is not rare to hear the kind of sanctimonious bullshit that Auticus is describing either online or in podcasts.  The competitive players will teach you 'the right way to play' or narrative players just 'suck and should git gud'.  

My personal favorite bit of rhetorical garbage is when they appeal to "Human Nature".  Its just "Human Nature" for competitive players to "break the game" and be "WAAC".  Appeals to "Human Nature" are your first hint that the person making the argument has no evidence to support their point.  "Human Nature" is shorthand for "whatever I want to prove to my point".  "Human Nature" is perfectly malleable to fit any argument and changes depending on what the person needs to win their argument.  

More importantly, "Human Nature" is usually invoked to excuse or justify bad behavior.  If a player, brings a competitive list to a narrative event one time, then maybe it was a mistake.  If they persist, however, until the narrative campaign is ruined, that is simply selfish and unacceptable behavior.  It is not "Human Nature" because they want to win and break the game.  It is a selfish individual intentionally ruining other people's games because they think they have the right to do so.

The narrative event organizer has the responsibility to make it clear that the event is narrative and not matched play.  Beyond that it is the player's responsibility to ensure their list, play style, and behavior do ruin other player's enjoyment of the game.  People don't like to hear this, but you have a responsibility to your opponent to do what you can to ensure they have an enjoyable game.  Specifically, never go out of your way to ensure their game is ruined just so you can enjoy yours. 

[Kamose]

Looking back, my last post seems a bit....uuummm...off topic.  Or perhaps late to the party.  So back to the GHB, I'm fine with yearly updates for points.  I think its give 'the meta' time to develop and change and redevelop and change a few times before solidifying for a few months before a new update.  It is far preferable to waiting years for partial updates in the form of one new army book.  

I also think that points being updated in a yearly publication is preferable to listing them in the Battletomes.  The points can be updated regularly without yearly reprinting of all the Battletomes (obviously not possible or desirable).  Also it helps separate Matched Play concerns from Narrative and Open Play concerns and, I hope, will help slow the co-opting of the latter two by the former. 

I think Warscroll Builder is a perfect compromise.  They can update the online source with 'play-test points' for the community to test while waiting for the next GHB to update the 'official points'.  There is no guarantee that, for example, the new points in the GHB2 for Fyreslayers and Tomb Kings must match the updated points they released a few months ago.  And that possibility is all for the good, I think.