Jump to content

My experience providing GHB feedback to the design team and my thoughts on GHB2019


Recommended Posts

On 6/25/2019 at 11:07 AM, Fulkes said:

@PlasticCraic remind me what armies after Brets and Tomb Kings that got the boot?

I'm not sure what advice other than patience ome can really give. Do you want us to tell people to go play something else instead?

AoS 2.0 was the jumping off point into a stronger effort to actually get things on the table in ways that make them playable outside of the Grand Alliance lists and microfaction format. This shift means they basically reset the clock on how long you'll be waiting for a real update (still waiting on a Free Peoples book myself). We have word the goal is to have everyone done by the end of 2020 with it looking like more will be coming soon.

Patience is a rather bitter pill to swallow though. So you've got a non-tome army against tome armies. Do you a) keep playing and get stomped regularly b) find other players with non-tome armies (difficult as we're all sick of getting stomped) c) make mix-matched grand alliance armies that have no soul (no) or d) give it up (my free people have been shelved for 6 months collecting dust)?

I tried the whole humies + sigmarines combo but it's not fun to play at all. 

I too wait for a free peoples book, i always wanted tanks and artillery as a teenager but all my mates played 40k so i did too. When i could finally afford it as an adult with a group of friends, i jumped in and bought models for free people not knowing that they were barely supported until i'd made a reasonable investment.  A lack of research on my part but i did expect a game that had been re-launched to be somewhat balanced. Making artillery and magic allies is just nonsense and serves absolutely no purpose as both the collegiate arcane and ironwood arsenal can't properly function as stand alone factions. I've never seen a proper reasoning for this decision other than the typical "GW is always right suck it up" you get on this forum. 

I have moved on from free people to a new army but my investment in the game has been significantly reduced to the point where i only buy recasts/second hand from buy-swap/sell groups until the playing field is levelled. 

I get you'll never make everyone happy and staggering releases builds hype but when you're at the bottom of the update list it's very frustrating when you've made a significant investment. 

The OP also makes good points about cheapening point costs for non-tome armies. If you do that and then update people will be annoyed with excess models. In the interim though, uncompetitive armies doesn't help anyone. 

Edited by Saxon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Saxon said:

I too wait for a free peoples book, i always wanted tanks and artillery as a teenager but all my mates played 40k so i did too. When i could finally afford it as an adult with a group of friends, i jumped in and bought models for free people not knowing that they were barely supported until i'd made a reasonable investment.  A lack of research on my part but i did expect a game that had been re-launched to be somewhat balanced. Making artillery and magic allies is just nonsense and serves absolutely no purpose as both the collegiate arcane and ironwood arsenal can't properly function as stand alone factions. I've never seen a proper reasoning for this decision other than the typical "GW is always right suck it up" you get on this forum.  

I think the mainreason was to prevent buffing too much units at once. Before the first Generals Handbook this wasn't a problem, because Allegiance Abilities and Allies didn't exist yet. It's more a problem that was created during the games evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, EMMachine said:

I think the mainreason was to prevent buffing too much units at once. Before the first Generals Handbook this wasn't a problem, because Allegiance Abilities and Allies didn't exist yet. It's more a problem that was created during the games evolution.

I assume you mean something like indomitable which improves saves? This only affects units wholly within 12 so the risk of it affecting too much is very low when it's your great company you need buffed to keep your meat shields alive.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Saxon said:

I assume you mean something like indomitable which improves saves? This only affects units wholly within 12 so the risk of it affecting too much is very low when it's your great company you need buffed to keep your meat shields alive.....

I think we better make an Aelfexample.

High Elves where split into 5 subfactions

  • We have a Dragonlord that can make Re-roll Hits on Order Draconis Units with his Command Ability
  • An Anointed that can grand Re-roll Woundroles for Phoenixtemple Units with his Command Ability
  • The High Warden let Swifthawk Agents Units Re-Roll Chargerolls with his Command Ability (The Dragonnoble has a similar banner for Order Draconis)
  • The Skywarden has a Pendant for +1 Wound Rolls for Swifthawk Agents

If the Factions weren't split, you could basicly stack all 4 effects on the strongest unit or make a mass unit way stronger than it should be. In the beginning of the game this was most likely the decision to split factions. The main problem was the creation of the Allegiance Abilities, Battleline units and Allies, that made the concept of "take what you want" partly invalid.

In case of Free People an point would most likely be that the Free Guild General can't use "Hold the Line" on the Ironweld Arsenal Artillery to make these hit and wound better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2019 at 7:39 AM, RuneBrush said:

Have you fed this back to GW?

I did in the last two surveys but as it's a feature not a bug I was almost certainly wasting my time.

This isn't a one off incident- the strategy they have decided to use in AoS is to remove old models from  the keyword of the main army. Look at the compendium wood elves waywatchers (which have beautful models) and compare the usability in a wanderers army (where including them would remove your allegiance putting an already weak army at a crushing disadvantage) with my index Rough Riders for my Imperial Guard in 40k (which just give me a slightly sub par unit when I use them).

This isn't something they don't know about, it's the strategy the two different teams chose to pursue, the 40k team is more customer focused ('use your old stuff if you want but don't you want to buy these awesome new plastic sisters?' - spoiler: I do) and the AoS team is more sales focused (buy new stuff or lose). 

Edited by MrZakalwe
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MrZakalwe said:

This isn't a one off incident- the strategy they have decided to use in AoS is to remove old models from  the keyword of the main army. Look at the compendium wood elves waywatchers (which have beautful models) and compare the usability in a wanderers army (where including them would remove your allegiance putting an already weak army at a crushing disadvantage) with my index Rough Riders for my Imperial Guard in 40k (which just give me a slightly sub par unit when I use them).

The point with the Rough Riders is, that you are still able to use them with the index rules. That is what basicly the Compendium Lists are standing for.

The strangest thing I didn't noticed until someone told me, is that the Exil Aelfs Units have points in the Generals Handbook 2019, even though there Compendium List is not listed in the GW Shop (and only available when you know what the list looked like).

Gitmob is really in a strange spot with this.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

The point with the Rough Riders is, that you are still able to use them with the index rules. That is what basicly the Compendium Lists are standing for.

The strangest thing I didn't noticed until someone told me, is that the Exil Aelfs Units have points in the Generals Handbook 2019, even though there Compendium List is not listed in the GW Shop (and only available when you know what the list looked like).

Gitmob is really in a strange spot with this.

Just checked and yeah, there's the Reaper Bolt Thrower bold as brass. That's pretty funny.

The difference between Index and Compenium is if those units were Index 40k units they would have keywords that match their army and could be dropped painlessly into a force.

The Poison Wind Mortar is even included in the pictures in the Skaven Battletome but as it doesn't have the Skaventide keyword can't be used without wrecking your army - my rough riders (converted from AoS outriders and Cadians) just give me a cool looking unit.

Edited by MrZakalwe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MrZakalwe said:

I did in the last two surveys but as it's a feature not a bug I was almost certainly wasting my time.

I'd still be tempted to contact GW directly.  The surveys (although fantastic) are for GW to get an overall impression on if they're getting things right and how to steer the ship going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, MrZakalwe said:

I did in the last two surveys but as it's a feature not a bug I was almost certainly wasting my time.

This isn't a one off incident- the strategy they have decided to use in AoS is to remove old models from  the keyword of the main army. Look at the compendium wood elves waywatchers (which have beautful models) and compare the usability in a wanderers army (where including them would remove your allegiance putting an already weak army at a crushing disadvantage) with my index Rough Riders for my Imperial Guard in 40k (which just give me a slightly sub par unit when I use them).

This isn't something they don't know about, it's the strategy the two different teams chose to pursue, the 40k team is more customer focused ('use your old stuff if you want but don't you want to buy these awesome new plastic sisters?' - spoiler: I do) and the AoS team is more sales focused (buy new stuff or lose). 

 

20 hours ago, MrZakalwe said:

Just checked and yeah, there's the Reaper Bolt Thrower bold as brass. That's pretty funny.

The difference between Index and Compenium is if those units were Index 40k units they would have keywords that match their army and could be dropped painlessly into a force.

The Poison Wind Mortar is even included in the pictures in the Skaven Battletome but as it doesn't have the Skaventide keyword can't be used without wrecking your army - my rough riders (converted from AoS outriders and Cadians) just give me a cool looking unit.

 

 

EXACTLY, nail on the head.  This lack of support is why even though hoards of new players had come to AoS due to fabulous new models, I regularly see their tried and true fanbase looking elsewhere when their past purchases are treated like dirt- The AoS team only shows care for what you will buy next from them, NOT for what you bought from them already.  40K’s support is simply more appealing to players, and other classic WFB players are simply turning to options with more supported and balanced armies like The Ninth Age where you don’t have to worry about when or if GW will decide to pull your army or forgets that you don’t have a battletome for 6+ years.

  • Like 1
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

I'd still be tempted to contact GW directly.  The surveys (although fantastic) are for GW to get an overall impression on if they're getting things right and how to steer the ship going forward.

It's a good idea, I'll give it a try.

More use than me ranting on forums :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Zanzou said:

EXACTLY, nail on the head.  This lack of support is why even though hoards of new players had come to AoS due to fabulous new models, I regularly see their tried and true fanbase looking elsewhere when their past purchases are treated like dirt- The AoS team only shows care for what you will buy next from them, NOT for what you bought from them already.  40K’s support is simply more appealing to players, and other classic WFB players are simply turning to options with more supported and balanced armies like The Ninth Age where you don’t have to worry about when or if GW will decide to pull your army or forgets that you don’t have a battletome for 6+ years.

I can understand where you're coming from but will have to disagree to a certain extent for a few reasons.

First and foremost very few companies provide support for products anywhere near as long as companies like GW.  I reckon you'd struggle to get support for a 4 year old mobile phone (likely in the range of £400 when bought), but yet we expect GW to continue to release new battletomes for models that are 15 to 20 years old*?  The thing is that as time goes on, GW are actually providing support in the form of Legacy rules and nothing stopping people using these.

I don't think it's fair to compare 40k to AoS in this respect either.  40k has a completely different following to AoS and the background lore has been running for a lot more than 4 years.

Can I also ask who you mean by tried and true fanbase?  Because if you mean AoS players, we're seeing plenty of support - new Fyreslayer, Sylvaneth & Khorne battletomes alone, and some support in the latest generals handbook.  Don't get me wrong, I can't wait until we see Gutbusters updated in some way or other, but considering that the rules team are a handful of people I think we see a remarkable amount of content released.

* amusingly they actually do release warscrolls for these old models

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with @RuneBrush   I can use the  majority of the GW models I bought 29 years ago with only the need to rebase them to have them be 'legal and reasonably effective' in the current game.     Some of them (i.e. khorne daemons) are in the upper half of competitiveness under the current rules with just the need to add a few  support pieces.  

Some ancient models are noticeably less competitive but that's not necessarily permanent as GW has released battletomes compatible with ancient models (i.e. Beastmen, Gloomspite Gitz)  and likely will continue to.   Are they going to hit every model or model line that has ever existed in over 35 years of the companies existence - no.   But they may hit whatever legacy army that we are currently worrying about.  

I'm not sure there are other similar gaming companies that I'm aware of that have the same degree of forward compatibility spanning 30 or so years of existence. Certainly in other leisure industries there is even less assumption that the company will provide that degree of support.   

 

Edited by gjnoronh
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is where we have a bit of a disconnect...the people on this thread who are disappointed that Gitmob for example have been squatted, with zero official communication on the matter, aren't people who have been sitting on the same 3 Spear Chukkas for 15, 20, 25 years.  They are people who had Spear Chukkas proactively promoted to them as a viable purchase within the last 2 years.  That's what leaves a funny taste.

The fact that some of those kits were also sold years ago is frankly irrelevant to how somebody would feel if they bought Gitmob models shortly before GW pulled the plug on them out of nowhere.

A phased pathway to obsolescence would be my suggestion. 

Full support -> Move to Compendium (keeping all keywords) -> Move to Legends (removing keywords)

Having that stepped programme over a couple of years would be a much less abrasive approach that suddenly yanking away Matched Play support from models that were being actively sold and promoted until very recently. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

Full support -> Move to Compendium (keeping all keywords) -> Move to Legends (removing keywords) 

Gitmob actually have the "Legends" support because there is an Orc & Goblin List in Legends, but interestingly for example Dark Elves have both supports. They have a Dark Elves Legends list and the Compendium (that is only available if you know the link) has points in the Generals Handbook 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

I think this is where we have a bit of a disconnect...the people on this thread who are disappointed that Gitmob for example have been squatted, with zero official communication on the matter, aren't people who have been sitting on the same 3 Spear Chukkas for 15, 20, 25 years.  They are people who had Spear Chukkas proactively promoted to them as a viable purchase within the last 2 years.  That's what leaves a funny taste.

The fact that some of those kits were also sold years ago is frankly irrelevant to how somebody would feel if they bought Gitmob models shortly before GW pulled the plug on them out of nowhere.

A phased pathway to obsolescence would be my suggestion. 

Full support -> Move to Compendium (keeping all keywords) -> Move to Legends (removing keywords)

Having that stepped programme over a couple of years would be a much less abrasive approach that suddenly yanking away Matched Play support from models that were being actively sold and promoted until very recently. 

Good point - thanks for making it.    Agreed I'm coming at it from the long term customer perspective and that helps to have you frame it that way.

The vast majority of the advertising from GW is on new Battletomes rather then legacy kits but I'm sure there is someone who fell in love with Spear chukkas or similar units  somewhere along the way possibly because of a GW advert for them?    

But I think Legends/Compendium may cover some of those players needs.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,compendium and legends never should have been created.

Compendium units must get points in gh as other units,and legends units also must get scrolls and points in gh.

They dont need design new molds or create new minis,design scrolls for those units and balanced points take as ........one day of work??????

Many players as me got dispossesed when tempest eye box was released(2-3 years ago) and havent got nothing of dispossesed that havent oval base due to the fear to those units be deleted in the future.

For me legends and compendiuns are the same than squated armys because we only play matched play in my area(i dont know others country but in spain the 99'99999% of the aos games are matched play)

For me it is easy:

 

Kits being sold in the web MUST get 100 support(balance rules and battletome)

Kits that arent sold anymore in the webstore  must be deleted from the game(can be used as proxy of others units  tho)

 

So as a client that have bougth one item that is being sold rigth now by them(dispossesed new kits as ironbreackers) i demand get the same treatment and invest by gw than other armys 

Edited by prochuvi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, prochuvi said:

Yes,compendium and legends never should have been created.

Compendium units must get points in gh as other units,and legends units also must get scrolls and points in gh.

They dont need design new molds or create new minis,design scrolls for those units and balanced points take as ........one day of work??????

Many players as me got dispossesed when tempest eye box was released(2-3 years ago) and havent got nothing of dispossesed that havent oval base due to the fear to those units be deleted in the future.

For me legends and compendiuns are the same than squated armys because we only play matched play in my area(i dont know others country but in spain the 99'99999% of the aos games are matched play)

For me it is easy:

 

Kits being sold in the web MUST get 100 support(balance rules and battletome)

Kits that arent sold anymore in the webstore  must be deleted from the game(can be used as proxy of others units  tho)

 

So as a client that have bougth one item that is being sold rigth now by them(dispossesed new kits as ironbreackers) i demand get the same treatment and invest by gw than other armys 

Models are sold as models first and gaming pieces second. That has been GW policy for several decades now. 

It's also just as likely that they sold their stock out and aren't making anymore gitmob stuff, and given the demand of their actual modern product line as a shareholder I would be personally grieved if they spent resources on gitmob when they could be spamming GKoTG and making me a return on my investment. Which they are legally bound to do as a publicly traded company. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, prochuvi said:

Compendium units must get points in gh as other units,and legends units also must get scrolls and points in gh.

Compendium Units already have points in the Generals Handbook 2019, also known as the Sections "Chaos", "Death", "Destruction" and "Order" in the back part of the Pitched Battle Profile Booklet.

I think the problem with giving Legends Lists points is that except the point that there are only two armies and some heros at the moment, the system would most likely get flooded with Legends Armies if you get the better buffs with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...