Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
AaronWIlson

A disconnect in GW's team?

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, zedatkinszed said:

I take your point but if you think about how GW did AOS 1.0 it shows how they saw themselves. 

No question in my mind though - if GW wants 40K and AOS to have longevity then they need to invest in proper rules development (not just game development).

Then again if you look at how it has been happening for 30 years, the releases for (WHFB,) AOS and 40K are more kluges that develop out of the "rule of cool" (which dictates what models get released) rather than asking "what does the game need".

The minis are king in GW's process and TBH in many people's mind too. (That's not a defence of how they do things just and observation)

Mmm. Agree. But they need to change. The tabletop world is bigger, and better, than in the previous 30 years. Minis aside, the rest of the pack are catching up.

Back in the days when miniatures were half the size they are now, made out of stuff that would kill your favourite pet, (that's lead miniatures and lead bases, folks), Citadel had the mind to come up with a fun battle system that you could use those mini-figs with. Hence Warhammer. And yes, back then, they could have that excuse that really the games/rules are just a bit of fun.

No way can they use that now. GW is a machine driven not just by mini-fig sales but all the gumph that goes with it. I mean, there's about 30 books for Age of Sigmar, rather than the 1 they used way back in the 80s. And the majority are in hardback and will set you back around £20 each (not a couple of quid for what was a pamphlet).

And if you think that it's ok to ask gamers to spend that and still eff-it-up  consider GW designed the games system around the figures to monopolise this corner of wargaming. You can't get Stormcast or Space Marines elsewhere, because they are designed specifically for Age of Sigmar or 40k, to force people to buy GW. But if the business model is based only on the minis, that doesn't stack., does it?

The fact is, people have and will go for cheaper options, because they want to play the game. Warhammer is bigger than the models. That's why we have daft names for the Age of Sigmar races, and have creatures that it will be really difficult to copy, because GW have engineered it that way, and they need you to play the game. They want to own your hobby.

Which is ok, because the minis are cool.

...If only the rules were created with just as much care and attention!

Games Workshop is thriving, against all odds too, but not because it has a clue about what it wants to be. At the moment, it's the players who are trying to decide that, which is not good for Games Workshop.

If in the end, the players think GW should be creating solid, sensible, games to be vehicles for their miniatures, and GW either don't, or can't do that, then there are plenty of better games out there that will. I think GW needs to stop 'agile working' and provide a product that they can build on rather than constantly repair.

Paying their designers a decent wage would be a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kenshin620 said:

I think there has always been a disconnect, and will forever be a disconnect.

The SCE book for example. It's by no means terrible, but seriously how much thought actually went into it?

Did no one raise their hand and go "hey do you think creating rules for EIGHT stormhosts with their own mandatory item and trait would result in some (or most) being subpar, especially since we already have THIRTY SCE magic items"?

It's like they were making rules for the sake of making rules! Now I love space marine chapters, but maybe they should have slowly trickled the stormhosts rather than trying to stuff in as much as possible all at once at the launch of a new edition (new edition armies tend to...be a little on the weird side). Heck even Nighthaunt players (at the top competitive level, they're still great in normal games) are starting to think they're overpaying for Ethereal.

I think they thought "Hey lets have loads of options so people can play as all sorts of different Stormhosts!"

Because for them the rules are just the means by which you play the narrative, primarily. 

I don't think there's a disconnect, I think GW is very united in its vision to make toy soldiers with cool fiction and rules to play that out in a sociable atmosphere. Balance isn't a priority in that context because fun and theme override competition.

The real issue is that they have overtly identified and advertised the concept of "Matched Play" as though it's a thing, but it's not. It's the same toy soldiers game with minor adjustments. In an era of systems which do cater for highly competitive and balanced games and which invest in the constant upgrade and upkeep of the system to make it so, it's a huge misnomer to advertise simplistic but messy rules for playing with toy monsters and heroes as anything like that.

I mean it's not even clear what it is-is it a skirmish game? A war Game? It can be either. Sometimes it can be a skirmish army vs a war game army even. Which from a fun perspective is no problem, even a strength. But in a competitive system it's awful.

 

 

Edited by Nos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gabbi said:

 You cannot anymore get a game where you design stuff as you please, like mixing alliances, for example "for game balance sake" they say, even if questioned on the subject, everyone is very ready to point out undercosted and overcosted units by the dozen.

Have you ever tried playing in an organized Narrative Event (there's a whole dedicated narrative event organizer scene out there)? There are amazing events like NOVA's Narrative event that are just that. AoS has plenty of room to, and does very well, support multiple types of play.  I have no issues in my very small pond meta finding both super competitive games and much more narrative focused games. 

Edited by SwampHeart
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SwampHeart said:

Have you ever tried playing in an organized Narrative Event (there's a whole dedicated narrative event organizer scene out there)? There are amazing events like NOVA's Narrative event that are just that. AoS has plenty of room to, and dopes very well, support multiple types of play. 

Exactly this, you guys are acting like match play completely removes the open and narrative options. It doesn't. Even my local GW often runs narrative events over weekends where everyone brings everything for a messy but very fun day of gaming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nos said:

I mean it's not even clear what it is-is it a skirmish game? A war Game? It can be either. Sometimes it can be a skirmish army vs a war game army even. Which from a fun perspective is no problem, even a strength. But in a competitive system it's awful.

 

 

Yea thats a big issue for years.

Warhammer has usually been advertised as a "skirmish game"...but the average point values tend to be around 1.5k-2.5k. I remember the infamous Skaven Buses of 8th edition where you'd have to chew through like 150 rats...that is defiinitely not a skirmish game!

I mean sure you can play 500pts or Path to Glory (PLEASE GW advertise PTG more!) but often times you better bring tubs full of models to a game.

2 minutes ago, The Gunslinger said:

Exactly this, you guys are acting like match play completely removes the open and narrative options. It doesn't. Even my local GW often runs narrative events over weekends where everyone brings everything for a messy but very fun day of gaming. 

Wait a minute...didn't we this exact topic before! It was like a month ago!

 

Edited by kenshin620

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

Wait a minute...didn't we this exact topic before! It was like a month ago!

 

 

ah I dunno. I've gone way off topic and mainly focusing on the narrative V matched play side of the discussion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nico said:

Generally speaking they have come on leaps and bounds since AoS v1.0. Balance at the moment is the best it has been, although I regret the bias towards hordes and the total sidelining of shooting (tough balance to strike - Kunning Rukk was crazy).

I am surprised by some of the mistakes they have made - allowing stacking of same command abilities (now largely reined in, but obviously should never have been in place); and indefinite usage of Endless Legions for just 1 CP (when 40K nerfed similar more expensive abilities to once per game recently).

According to my Legion of Nagash Battletome it’s contingent upon your general being alive. Only the general can use this command ability, not just any leader. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

Yea thats why I am in warhammer in the first place!

I am not a tournament player, if I play MTG for example, I'm definitely a Timmy+Johnny!

(if you don't know MTG lingo, theres a wonderful article about the 3 main "buckets" of mtg players and hybrids. https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/timmy-johnny-and-spike-2013-12-03    )

...

Right now in 2.0 there are a lot of armies that could use some love but GW is GW, it updates when it updates. But on a whole I am very much 2.0 positive.

 

Totally agree. I've not been able to play a game of 2.0 yet  because there are too few ppl in my area. BUT that doesn't deter me from loving teh hobby or the minis. The minis is why I collect. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But tournaments are fun...

Yes, they are!  I love them. Less as I age, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I don’t know. I don’t know what they will do over all. 

I don’t know if they will create new and better rules and new and better miniatures for half of their broken armies. I don’t know if Wanderers will be brought up to the same level as SCE and Sylvaneth and Seraphon. 

I don’t know if Dispossessed will be brought up as well and actually made into a decent army. 

I don’t know if we will ever see the return of Tomb Kings rebranded and renamed or Bretonnia. 

I don’t know if we will see new Blood Knights and Vampire Counts and Lords in plastic and made cheaper and Soulblights actually non-trash. I don’t know if we will get new bat and fel bat models either. 

I don’t know if the old will be made new again and restored and on the same level as the actual new stuff and revitalized stuff. I don’t know if they care, and I don’t know if when they do this (if they do it at all) if it will all just be reshuffling things and adding things on top, or if they’ll completely rewrite each and every Warscroll and point and do a complete and cohesive revamp. 

I don’t know what they’re thinking, what direction they’re headed, or if some things that have been left behind will ever be revisited and made better. 

I don’t even know if they’ll do anything with some of the newer but really small factions with like 8 warscrolls like Fyreslayers or Ironjawz or if they’ll help Beastclaw Raiders or anything. 

Will Ogre Kingdoms ever be a thing? 

Its not just old models but old bad rules. You just literally cannot take dispossessed to a tournament and actually expect to come out as #1, their rules aren’t good enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GutrotSpume said:

They get a lot right these days but still get stuff wrong balance wise, in the BOC book Dragon Ogres and Enlightened are the same points! 

Yup and they never fix underpowered units:

black Arc corsairs, Drakespawn Chariots, Drakespawn Knights, Wild Riders and many more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JackStreicher a lot of those units are in sub-groups. My impression is that GW keeps the subgroups going with little updates, but won't divert primary attention to them until they are either bumped up to a full army on their own or combined with others to form a single army or dropped. Which makes sense, focus on the big releases and clean up the range as you go - it a legacy that is honestly hurting AoS and is about the last big hangover most people have about the game in a major way. I think once GW has cleaned up the listings and armies we'll be in a very different and more positive position. It's an annoying waiting game considering the wealth of models the range has to get started with. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Overread said:

@JackStreicher a lot of those units are in sub-groups. My impression is that GW keeps the subgroups going with little updates, but won't divert primary attention to them until they are either bumped up to a full army on their own or combined with others to form a single army or dropped. Which makes sense, focus on the big releases and clean up the range as you go - it a legacy that is honestly hurting AoS and is about the last big hangover most people have about the game in a major way. I think once GW has cleaned up the listings and armies we'll be in a very different and more positive position. It's an annoying waiting game considering the wealth of models the range has to get started with. 

Yep, though it‘s a task you could do within two days with one Person -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JackStreicher said:

Yep, though it‘s a task you could do within two days with one Person -_-

Aye, but my impression is that GW wants to market each update as a new army marketing move rather than clean it all up and then only have a book to release. I'm sure for them it makes sense even if it actually puts people off when they look at Order and there are a dozen or more armies to pick, many of which have only a couple of models to their name. Heck there's one Death army which is only one build option from a duel kit and I can't fathom why GW hasn't just dropped that force and rolled it into something else. 

In the end we just have to live with it really until GW cleans itself up with regard to AoS. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kenshin620 said:

Warhammer has usually been advertised as a "skirmish game"...but the average point values tend to be around 1.5k-2.5k. I remember the infamous Skaven Buses of 8th edition where you'd have to chew through like 150 rats...that is defiinitely not a skirmish game!

Warhammer Fantasy Battle was never advertised as a skirmish game. 8th edition was actually one of the only periods where sub 100 model armies were competent (due to amazing monsters and monstrous infantry being released).

I haven't seen Age of Sigmar talked about in those terms either, but could definitely be mistaken (lots of talk of 'as big or small as you'd like', but that's not the same). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed - Skirmish for wargames is typically only going to be a handful of models per side at most. Five to ten models aside and you're there for most Skirmish games. AoS is far far larger, heck a basic composition of your core troops will typically be at least 10-30 models for most armies, more for some. So there's certainly no way its skirmish in the miniature wargame world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Overread said:

Agreed - Skirmish for wargames is typically only going to be a handful of models per side at most. Five to ten models aside and you're there for most Skirmish games. AoS is far far larger, heck a basic composition of your core troops will typically be at least 10-30 models for most armies, more for some. So there's certainly no way its skirmish in the miniature wargame world

It’s skirmish STYLE. As in the round bases and free movement, instead of rank and file blocks that must adhere to strict movement trays. 

Skirmish style is a type of game format, like a D20 RPG pen and paper or wrath and glory’s D6 system. Rank and File is another type of game format. 

Skirmish games are what you are talking about and skirmish games (small model counts) can be played either skirmish style or rank and file. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

It’s skirmish STYLE. As in the round bases and free movement, instead of rank and file blocks that must adhere to strict movement trays. 

Skirmish style is a type of game format, like a D20 RPG pen and paper or wrath and glory’s D6 system. Rank and File is another type of game format. 

Skirmish games are what you are talking about and skirmish games (small model counts) can be played either skirmish style or rank and file. 

I wouldn’t call AoS skirmish. Much in the same way you wouldn’t call 40K or Warmahordes skirmish. The distinction comes with whether the individual models put out on the table have unique rules to each model. You’re getting overlap because it’s the same number of models, but when every model is acting the exact same (like say, ten liberators operating independently), it’s not skirmish.

Kill Team is a skirmish game because each model is unique, while AoS Skirmish feels like a really small AoS game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ravinsild said:

According to my Legion of Nagash Battletome it’s contingent upon your general being alive. Only the general can use this command ability, not just any leader. 

In 40K you can only do this once per game, in AoS, the general could bring back 60 Grimghasts every turn for 2 CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nico said:

In 40K you can only do this once per game, in AoS, the general could bring back 60 Grimghasts every turn for 2 CP.

Command points are much harder to come by in aos, and you can always target characters in aos, not like in 40k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sleboda said:

despised those rules, for sure.

I'm talking just about the whole "play with your collection as you see fit - talk it out with your opponent first" approach. Loved it!

It was the first and only time in GW's history where they walked the talk. For decades they said it was about the models and that the range is so large that they'll never get the balance right ... and yet they kept selling point values, unit sizes, etc. It was hypocritical and disingenuous.

Then they finally said "You know what? ****** that. We make great models. You paint them. We will make some some basic rules as a frame for a game. You will figure the rest out."

And we did.

We played games that were spectacles and thrilling. One guy said he wanted to use every plague bearer he owned. So he did. It was a wonderful evening.

Nobody argued. Nobody got bent out of shape at a loss. Nobody was trying to net-list a killer combo. People were just having fun with their hobby.

There are not enough likes in all the Facial Tomes for this!  I completely agree.  I've played AoS since literally week 1 and I absolutely enjoyed it from the start!  We actually have a group that still does Open Play monthly events and its worked quite well for going on 2 years now.  

In defense of the Matched Play point of view I will say that adding points to the game made it accessible to a wider audience and broadened the game's appeal.  I still don't buy the jive that points are necessary for balance and fun though.

Those people with the most games under their belt and the most gaming experience are probably the tournament players.  They likely have the best grasp of game balance just through sheer number of games played.  They'd also probably make the best judges of a balanced and fun  Open Play game and yet they're the same people who insisted the game was "a mess" and "unplayable" until points were introduced. 

Isn't it ironic?  Don't ya think?

proxy.duckduckgo.jpg.74bb0f67822b786a74a6c552f6f0f347.jpg

9 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Nobody argued. Nobody got bent out of shape at a loss. Nobody was trying to net-list a killer combo. People were just having fun with their hobby.

Also no one ever played 100 Bloodthirster list that the silliest, trolliest people were claiming would dominate the game!  :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Now, don't get me wrong. I enjoy the current game as well. A lot. I'm just saying that for a brief moment, there was a shining place known as Camelot.

It's just a model. 

 

:P

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

There are not enough likes in all the Facial Tomes for this!  I completely agree.  I've played AoS since literally week 1 and I absolutely enjoyed it from the start!  We actually have a group that still does Open Play monthly events and its worked quite well for going on 2 years now.  

In defense of the Matched Play point of view I will say that adding points to the game made it accessible to a wider audience and broadened the game's appeal.  I still don't buy the jive that points are necessary for balance and fun though.

Those people with the most games under their belt and the most gaming experience are probably the tournament players.  They likely have the best grasp of game balance just through sheer number of games played.  They'd also probably make the best judges of a balanced and fun  Open Play game and yet they're the same people who insisted the game was "a mess" and "unplayable" until points were introduced. 

Isn't it ironic?  Don't ya think?

proxy.duckduckgo.jpg.74bb0f67822b786a74a6c552f6f0f347.jpg

Also no one ever played 100 Bloodthirster list that the silliest, trolliest people were claiming would dominate the game!  :)

Because to have 100 Bloodthirsters is 11,000$.... 

i know this game is for people with money but honestly how many people have THAT much money? Obviously if you have that much money to buy just Bloodthirsters with youd probably have the space for them... what with living in a mansion and all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's weird to me is that most of the people who are on the rules team are actually pretty good at AoS so them making really dumb decisions like infinite damage grots, infinite spells Nagash, Infinite mortal wounds Kroak, and  the Realm of Battle rules doesn't really make any sense because these guys are skilled enough and knowledgeable enough about the game to know the problems they're causing.

In 40k the rules designers are clearly confused all the time about what things do and how their rules and rulings will actually affect the game, but that's mostly down to none of them really understanding how the game works at a systemic level. They simply aren't good enough at 40k to look at a change and go 'oh yeah, that's gonna ****** up some ******.' The people who design Sigmar ARE good enough at the game to look at these changes and immediately see the problems, they just choose not to until after they blow out a tournament or two.

On open play. If the goal of the two players is to have a fun balanced game, than open play will always be the best option. GW will never ever be able to balance two forces against each other as well as two friends who play against each other a lot.

If your goal is to see who is the better player, open play is absolutely worthless. With no constraints on what it's possible for you to bring and do then the question becomes 'who owns more Nagashs'. The points system as a balancing metric is it's secondary function. It's MAIN function is to create a set parameters players have to operate in that allows actual competition to take place. Pushing those constraints to their limit is where skill and knowledge of the game comes in. Imagine playing American football with no out of bounds zone. It would still be awesome if everyone just agreed to go down the field like normal, but if you had money or pride on the line, or just wanted to test your actual skill at the game, it would instantly become super dumb. Every play would be those stupid 'hot potatoe' plays you see as last ditch efforts most of the time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you listened to our cast on it you'll know we were massively confused by the BoC book too. After 4 books of doing mini-battalions and/or battalions with no real benefits and/or battalions that dont let you get your drop count too low, suddenly we're back to uber-battalions where you can use what you like and be 1 drop.

Also dont get me started on Enlightened.

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

×