Jump to content

The Future of AoS


Overread

Recommended Posts

One thought is that if Chaos is so well entrenched it might do better being "last" than a less well known faction. Some of those less well known ones might want to be before a BIG popular faction release so that the smaller factions get a chance to get their head up; that fans can support them and new people join in with a focus on them; with GW knowing that once they get to a major faction like Slaves to Darkness, they will easily make sales even though its come after so many.

 

It could be luck of the draw, production scheduling, rearranging of the release windows, any one of a number of reasons. That said they are just "last" in getting a first tome (they might sitll come before KO, Seraphon and Tzeentch so might not be "last" of AoS 2.0); someone has to come nearer the end and no matter the faction we could likely find ample justification for it shouldn't be "insert name of faction*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that StD might be getting a large-ish release. Replacing some of the old finecast (chosen, various heroes) with new plastics and replacing the old marauders with new Darkoath sculpts.  I would love for them to replace the warriors with more dynamic sculpts, but they're not quite as bad off as the marauders. 

I'm sure the Warcry bands will make an appearance in the StD book, but I doubt in a substantial way. Their current rules are fun, each with a unique gimmick but they're ultimately pretty streamlined. The ogor only has a few extra wounds, but has the same weapons. I can't see them taking the place of a unit like marauders.

Large releases are harder to fit into the overall schedule, and hopefully they'll be the next big AoS release after the bone bros. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, something I came across is the Talk by Mark Rosewater for a GDC some years ago. While his talk is done from a card game dev perspective for a video game audience, there is still a lot of those points that apply to tabletop games. I can only highly recommend it as it helps to understand some strengths and weaknesses of GW´s gamedesign which often ends up in disscussions from the Community. "Short" recap of MaRo´s talk iny my own words:

  1. Fit the game to the players. Don´t expect them to adapt otherwise
  2. Aesthetics Matter. If there is some discrepancy in it, players will dislike it.
  3. People have a imprint on certain things. Reusing thoose is fine and usefull -> f.e. Scary Zombies Archetypes
  4. Use Piggybacking to transport information. Make it easier for players to learn a rule with preexisting knowledge, for example flying movement over terrain and units.
  5. Don´t mistake "interesting" ruledesign with "fun". A strong rule interaction can still be quite unfun to play with (or against)
  6. Understand, what emotion your game wants to trigger. If you want a faction to trigger f.e. fear, concider, what rules and design approaches will add to this emotion. There is a quote from screenwriting: "No scene is worth a movie, and no line is worth a scene" -> if a designelement is good but don´t serve the bigger purpose, it is not worth it
  7. Leave players the room, to customize the game and to make it something personal. This is something TT hobbies are strong at, and the main reason players dislike the newer kits with less kitbash/conversion possibilities
  8. Details are the things players fall in love with.
  9. Allow the players to be part of the whole thing and to be able to influence the game.
  10. Players need the environment to explore the game. Some quite interesting point in which in my opinion the online communities really do harm to AoS
  11. If anyone likes your game, but noone loves it, it was a fail. -> Read also as: Polarisation is good
  12. Do not design something for the sake of doing it. (certain relationship to the quote from 6)
  13. Make the fun part also the correct strategy to win. Players will go for the strategy that allows them to win. Even if it is the boring way which makes no fun at all and in the end the players will blame the game for it.
  14. Don´t be afraid to be blunt. Sometimes people miss the obvious strengths of a unit. By adding something that points the attention of a player to it, the player can be easier taught that.
  15. Well, this one is harder to explain as there is player psychographics and such stuff invlved. In general, there are differend kinds of players. Thoose who want to experience something("casual"), express something("narrative/fluffbased") or prove something("winning/competetive"). When designing game elements, keep in mind which of thoose players you adress.
  16. Be rather afraid of boring players than by challenging them. Players will adapt to new design elements. (->This is something GW did quite nicely with faction terrain and Endless Spells) Players will rather forgive failed design attempts than the game becoming boring.
  17. You don´t have to change a lot to change everything. Smaller decent changes can often be enough.
  18. Restrictions breed creativity. Players won´t get creative as long as they can reuse stuff, f.e. in listbuilding. I belive a proof for this is the creative approach on meeting engagements listbuilding compared to usual lists.
  19. Players are good at pointing out issues, but are bad at solving them. Therefore feedback should be ussed to find issues but suggested solutions should be concidered with a grain of salt.
  20. All of thoose lections above have to be concidered together and not only on their own.

All in all a great talk I can really recommend to everybody who likes to take an insight into game developement :)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Charleston said:

Well, this one is harder to explain as there is player psychographics and such stuff invlved. In general, there are differend kinds of players. Thoose who want to experience something("casual"), express something("narrative/fluffbased") or prove something("winning/competetive"). When designing game elements, keep in mind which of thoose players you adress.

Ah, good old Johnny (express something)/Timmy(casual)/Spike (competitive) but "express something" doesn't mean narrative but rather creating unusual decks (or armies). For example a Troggoth army is mostly for Timmies as it's not particularly competitive but it looks cool. Spikes likes Slaanesh and Gristlegore and an example of  Johnny's army is that old squig army before Gloomspite. It won't work all the time but it's fun when it works. Basically Johnnys like to create armies that depends on hard to activate combos, they want to make something that no one has ever done before.

Edited by michu
  • Like 1
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...