Army specific Scenery (OP?)

[Belakor]

I dont see the difference between a real unit (that moves,fights, scores) and a Loonshrine for example. They both have an affect that benefits your gameplay, they all have some value, thats why usually you give them a point cost, to represent the value they add to the game. At the moment a scenery costing 0 is something clearly wrong, specially when not all races have one. Again. Bad game design imo. 

[SwampHeart]

29 minutes ago, Belakor said:

I dont see the difference between a real unit (that moves,fights, scores) and a Loonshrine for example. They both have an affect that benefits your gameplay, they all have some value, thats why usually you give them a point cost, to represent the value they add to the game. At the moment a scenery costing 0 is something clearly wrong, specially when not all races have one. Again. Bad game design imo. 

Answer my actual question then - do you have a problem with Legions of Nagash gravesite markers? 

[JackStreicher]

38 minutes ago, Belakor said:

I dont see the difference between a real unit (that moves,fights, scores) and a Loonshrine for example. They both have an affect that benefits your gameplay, they all have some value, thats why usually you give them a point cost, to represent the value they add to the game. At the moment a scenery costing 0 is something clearly wrong, specially when not all races have one. Again. Bad game design imo. 

Your allegiance abilities are free as well, want a price tag for them? The scenery is but a Allegiance ability with a model to narrow it‘s effect to an area instead of the whole game. No one would ever mind proxxing it, so it can be free.

it is another model of your army and it‘s free of any points since you can only take one of it (for most armies starting with one) which grants some army specific boons / Grants local Allegiance Abilities. The tax for it is in the points of every of your units so you are already paying for it.

 

“but if you don‘t have it you are at a disadvantage“ - yup that also counts for pretty much every model in every army. The new army design also includes scenery 🤷🏼‍♂️ 

And yes it is bad game design, I for example hate the Throne of the FeC since it makes no sense to me. But I am still forced to take it.

[Belakor]

Im pretty new to the game, what are those?

[SwampHeart]

3 minutes ago, Belakor said:

Im pretty new to the game, what are those?

They are markers placed on the table that allow you to restore slain models to friendly Legions of Nagash units (with restrictions on what type of unit, how many, etc of course). But they are not a terrain feature. 

[Belakor]

Yes why not. This are free. Thus not Pay to Win. 

[amysrevenge]

Well, they did sell cardboard punch-out ones while supplies lasted.

[Skabnoze]

1 hour ago, Belakor said:

They ain't Pay to Win because they are free. It just feels... Weird a 0pts scenery, like if they are giving you the choice to take it or not, it feels weird. I come from other games where every cost and value is strictly studied and tested to be balanced, this kind of things really feel weird to me. 

That's fair, but I think you are getting a bit too caught up on the model itself.  Think of the army-allegiance terrain as a 3-dimensional token that GW sells rather than a model for your army.  That is functionally what these things are from a game perspective.

[Skabnoze]

41 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

They are markers placed on the table that allow you to restore slain models to friendly Legions of Nagash units (with restrictions on what type of unit, how many, etc of course). But they are not a terrain feature. - YET

Fixed that for you.

We don't know when Legions of Nagash will get a book rewrite, but I think it is pretty safe to say that the Grave Markers will be altered into a terrain set.

[SwampHeart]

41 minutes ago, Belakor said:

Yes why not. This are free. Thus not Pay to Win. 

Gotcha so you have literally no intellectual consistency. Since they're a token they're OK. So you'd be OK if the Loonshrine was also a token instead of a model? That is utterly ridiculous - you have no concern whatsoever for 'game design' you just don't like having to buy extra models. 

Why is a token any different than a model from a game design stand point if they do the exact same thing? 

[Belakor]

It costs money, thus Pay to win

[SwampHeart]

2 minutes ago, Belakor said:

It costs money, thus Pay to win

Then the entire game is pay to win because every unit in the game costs money. I'm done bro - you're being disingenuous and have no desire to actually talk about the subject. You're just cheap and don't want to buy an extra model for your army. Have fun.  

[Belakor]

XD

[CJPT]

Might be worth pointing out that 'costs 0 points' doesn't mean you're not paying a cost for it somewhere. Points values for individual units in a faction take in to account the faction as a whole: if your army benefits from a 'free' terrain feature or amazing allegiance ability, then there's a good chance you're paying for that benefit elsewhere - inflated battleline costs, expensive battalions, and so on. Special terrain can also 'cost' you in other ways: for example, FEC players trying to maximise the benefit of the Charnel Throne must also deal with the fact that the placement of the Charnel Throne makes their early-game strategy really obvious to their opponent. There's no such thing as a free benefit in a wargame where everything comes with an opportunity cost.

As others have said, army-specific terrain is simply part of getting set up with certain factions, along with a battletome. If people are put off by the prospect of an extra outlay when getting started with a new army, well, there are plenty of competitive armies that don't have any terrain at all.

[Skabnoze]

6 minutes ago, CJPT said:

 Special terrain can also 'cost' you in other ways: for example, FEC players trying to maximise the benefit of the Charnel Throne must also deal with the fact that the placement of the Charnel Throne makes their early-game strategy really obvious to their opponent. There's no such thing as a free benefit in a wargame where everything comes with an opportunity cost.

The Loonshrine is pretty much the same in that regard.  A Gloomspite army is likely going to commit a fair amount of it's forces to the area around a Loonshrine since it grants battleshock immunity to an army with poor bravery and it also functions to recycle your slain grots units.  You don't have to cluster a bunch of your units around it - but ignoring a major army advantage such as this is generally not the best plan.

[robinlvalentine]

Guys, this topic's done... he's just arguing in circles and getting everyone worked up, and he's clearly not willing to take on board anything anyone's saying. 

@Belakor something to think about, if literally everyone on one of the most active and constructive AOS forums is telling you you're wrong, is it not possible that there's something about the situation you've not considered? 

[Barbossal]

I feel like I may want to wade into this debate - I'm a game designer who works with monetization, after all.

To establish the thesis: Pay-to-Win refers to a concept that you are at an advantage if you expend real world currency to acquire in-game Power. Power can be defined in a lot of ways, whether it's things like: Stat Advantages, Choice Variety, etc, etc. It can be a lot of things.

Is getting Free Terrain Pay-to-Win? Yes - you can have two players with the same points distribution with varying power levels because one player spent out of game currency to obtain an in-game advantage.

Is that unheard of in Warhammer? Absolutely not - Battletomes/GHB do this already. When you show up to a game, let's say Player A has their point-built Skaven, and Player B has their point-built Skaven using the new Skaventide rules which allows them access to new varieties of artifacts, allegiance abilities, battalions, etc. In this case, the player who bought the book has additional power that they paid for.

In fact - thinking of Warhammer as being or not being Pay-to-Win is a bit of a bugbear. After all - when we make games in a conventional sense, everyone sitting at their computer or their board game has the exact same chance because they're normally starting from the same level. In Warhammer, there's so much hobby behind building Your Dudes that putting everyone into the same level of starter boxing would be at complete odds of what we appreciate about the hobby. You pick what you think is cool.

Now - all that said - there's a bigger question here that I think OP is feeling and it's not being expressed between the two sides here properly, and it is absolutely worth having a meangingful and constructive conversation about: GW is shifting the price point of getting started with an army at an "Optimal" state. If money were not an obstacle - would you ever leave the no-cost terrain out of your list? Probably not. Options are king. There's a shift in price point from $50 CAD to $100 CAD (my own currency) in order to start up an army and get the most out of it, that's before you even start building your dudes. That actually does concern me.

[Belakor]

@Barbossal Options are king indeed! 

[Belakor]

1 hour ago, robinlvalentine said:

Guys, this topic's done... he's just arguing in circles and getting everyone worked up, and he's clearly not willing to take on board anything anyone's saying. 

@Belakor something to think about, if literally everyone on one of the most active and constructive AOS forums is telling you you're wrong, is it not possible that there's something about the situation you've not considered? 

People telling I' m wrong doesn't mean I'm wrong. Neither you are. Thats why we have forums, to discuss and debate. 

[robinlvalentine]

34 minutes ago, Belakor said:

People telling I' m wrong doesn't mean I'm wrong. Neither you are. Thats why we have forums, to discuss and debate. 

This isn't discussion and debate... it's people explaining in depth to you how something works, and you replying 'it's bad though' over and over. You're not engaging with the topic at all. 

[Belakor]

Then do I have to accept it's not Pay to WIn? That is a great game design, just because a lot of people told me? This is not how it works. 

A Game Designer who works in monetitzatio just said it's pay to win, is he wrong as well? This is just a debate we all should give our opinion.

[Barbossal]

11 minutes ago, Belakor said:

Then do I have to accept it's not Pay to WIn? That is a great game design, just because a lot of people told me? This is not how it works. 

A Game Designer who works in monetitzatio just said it's pay to win, is he wrong as well? This is just a debate we all should give our opinion.

Well - I think that's a bit of a simplification of my point. I'm meaning that the entire hobby relies on a model where your power is dictated by spend, not only the terrain.

[Sedraxis]

It is more like pay to play as in you have to pay to get the models (and books) to get access to your faction's special rules. Points or no points it has all been factored in the core design of said faction.

It is not pay to win in the good old mobile games style where the guy who burns the most cash has the best stats.

If there was no limit on how many terrain features an army can bring, I'd call it bad design. Right now I call this a great way to make allegiance abilities more visual and interesting.

[robinlvalentine]

14 minutes ago, Belakor said:

Then do I have to accept it's not Pay to WIn? That is a great game design, just because a lot of people told me? This is not how it works. 

A Game Designer who works in monetitzatio just said it's pay to win, is he wrong as well? This is just a debate we all should give our opinion.

This is what I mean... instead of actually discussing it, you're just saying 'PAY TO WIN BAD GAME DESIGN' over and over. Stop, breathe, and actually digest some of what people are saying to you, and then come back with an actual position. 

Barbossal posted an in-depth, nuanced comment, and you've just skimmed it to pull out what you want from it. Read what they actually wrote.

Clearly there's more to it than just 'IT BAD' or 'IT GOOD', and I don't think fixating on the idea of 'pay to win' is helpful either - it's a video game term that doesn't translate to Warhammer. 

 

 

[JPjr]

I think, for me, it’s an issue of semantics. Pay-to-win, again maybe just for me, implies that everyone starts off on an equal footing and then through additional purchases gains an advantage somehow.

Now, of course, in many ways Warhammer is literally 100% ptw. After all you have to buy, build & paint everything you want to field (or pay someone else to do it for you) on the tabletop.

The problem here though, and why I and I assume many others here don’t exactly regard it as PtW, is that there’s no one basis that we all start from, both in terms of unit composition and, to get a bit lardi-dah about it, philosophically.

You have a couple of dozen factions, all with different requirements and strengths that all cost wildly different amounts of money and people don’t necessarily just spend money on the most refined min-maxed smash face army.

Let’s say I want to put together a 1000pt Gloomtide army for this theoretical tournament, and I’m a broke tweenager trying to do it on the cheap. If buying firsthand I could probably do it for around £200 (and we’re nit including cost of paints, travel, entrance fee etc)

A Loonboss, 2 maxed out blobs of Stabbas,  maybe a Madcap Shaman and the battletome. Unless I’m lucky and a tactical genius I’m probably going to get rinsed by everyone else though who hasn’t just gone for the cheapest route.

In that sense the whole thing is PtW, so I’m not sure a zero point bit of terrain is that much of an egregious addition to the game. Especially when I’m terms of game design it actively encourages the kind of game that GW want it to be.