AoS 3 New Rules Discussion

[Eldarain]

Feels like you just have to hope you have super fans of your faction within the team. There's a gulf between books they were excited to write and those that just had to get done.

[Greybeard86]

That is an endless discussion. But let me say this: we know that all 40k army books are already written, so why drip feeding the releases? Why is it that units and entire factions get the spotlight on a rotating basis, leading to long cycles of irrelevance and lack of care (poor rules, few or no model releases)?

Obviously it is a strategy, a deliberate choice, as they choose to focus marketing efforts and no little part of it might be that this simply pushes people to collect more armies. I know that this is a very common recommendation from vets to rookies. Heck, someone just referred to people sticking to one army as legends. That says it all.

[Lurynsar]

26 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

That is an endless discussion. But let me say this: we know that all 40k army books are already written, so why drip feeding the releases? Why is it that units and entire factions get the spotlight on a rotating basis, leading to long cycles of irrelevance and lack of care (poor rules, few or no model releases)?

Obviously it is a strategy, a deliberate choice, as they choose to focus marketing efforts and no little part of it might be that this simply pushes people to collect more armies. I know that this is a very common recommendation from vets to rookies. Heck, someone just referred to people sticking to one army as legends. That says it all.

I can actually answer this as I run a store. It’s a two or three fold reason. 

The first is simple economics. If I release X, Y and Z at once, most buyers will buy X or Y or Z. If I space them out a month or three between each far more players will buy all three. While there is a chance that in time players would still buy all 3, that is lessened as the hype is gone. Hype drives sales big time and when you hype three things, but wallets can only afford one; the other two will not sell as much even over a similar period as releasing them spaced out would. 

The next reason is store inventory. Hobby stores often run on thin margins and cannot afford to buy multiple releases at once. When a new book comes with 1-3 new kits, cards, dice and a Combat Patrol you’re asking a store to spend hundreds of dollars for each single release for just a single copy of each, with more obviously costing more, and most stores don’t take enough preorder payments early enough to offset the risk. Doing it for one release at a time is fine, but 3 at once? 5? 10? You’d literally be blowing a years budget in one go, and are likely to sell far fewer over the same amount of time (see above). Unlike some companies, GW does actually try to help out and support the LGSs that sell their games, so they don’t want to see them run under a wave of releases. 

Okay Lurynsar that’s fine, but just release the rules and everything else later I hear you cry. And again a good idea in theory, but it has two issues. The first is mass production, transport and storage of a single codex/tome takes up space and time. Doing it times 10 is just not realistic during Covid especially, but also a whole for GW. While they’re a billion dollar company on paper there’s a lot more behind the scenes of that number, and on top of it this success is quite new to them. They’re a little company that has to grow up fast. This isn’t defending the fact they haven’t, but it’s just the logistical truth. 

To add to this is a lawsuit they half lost years ago about IP. If they don’t put a model to market within a certain timeframe they actually cannot defend the IP to it if someone else rushes it to market first. So releasing all the rules is fine, but they cannot include the new models and what not in that book because of this lawsuit if it’s not within a time frame of release (I’ve not got specifics on the time line. But again 10+ factions even with just 2 or 3 models each is a huge time frame of releases due to their production capacity). Now an option to this is embrace digital fully and “errata” in the options when you release the models for those books down the line. This actually would work to a degree, but isn’t GWs model at this time. 

However, even if they embraced such a model it still cycles back to this current system is the best for the business as a whole. Both GW and the stores that sell their product. While it isn’t as ideal for the players, especially tournament players, it’s still the best system they have in their eyes. And in reality the people who play this game and care about balance and equal releases and book strength and everything this forum talks about are the minority. We seem the majority because we all exist inside multiple echo chambers together, but the sales data doesn’t lie. “Casual” players who don’t play the game regularly at all make up most of the sales. They want cool models and pretty art and fun stories. Many players can have entire editions pass them by with only a handful of games played, yet they’re buying models every month still. 

So yeah, despite it all GW has a plan. And while we may not like it or might think we know better, they do know what they’re doing when it comes to releases (outside Covid delays) and sale driven data at the very least. 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Lurynsar

[Greybeard86]

I don’t claim it is a bad plan. But it is founded on new releases driving a disproportionate share of sales, and it does hurt balance and those who stick to one army.

It is nevertheless possible to have other approaches to releases and rule support, you just need to take a look at other companies that don’t rely on hype so much. So I don’t buy the idea that it is the only way to avoid warehouses and stores imploding. 

[Lurynsar]

Just now, Greybeard86 said:

I don’t claim it is a bad plan. But it is founded on new releases driving a disproportionate share of sales, and it does hurt balance and those who stick to one army.

It is nevertheless possible to have other approaches to releases and rule support, you just need to take a look at other companies that don’t rely on hype so much. So I don’t buy the idea that it is the only way to avoid warehouses and stores imploding. 

Okay sure. There are other ways to do things. But why? Games Workshop has been the big fish for awhile, and now they’re dominating the world. Their growth has been nothing short of insane the last 5 years, and especially the last 2. 

They literally are winning by doing what they’re doing. I’m not saying it’s the best or ideal for players who want more balance and play events. I’m simply saying that GW has consistently pushed aside every challenger, and grows bigger and bigger each year. While it might not seem important for “balance” and what a vocal minority want, the fact is when it comes to doing things “right” or wrong the data doesn’t lie. Games Workshop is 100% doing things right in a corporate world. 

That will sometimes suck for certain types of players or collectors for sure, but as a whole it means at least we continue to have a game and support. That’s something that a lot of games out there don’t have a promise of. 

[Kodos der Henker]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

There are a couple infamous examples of the developers being told to deliberately overpower something to sell it - the Wraithknight being the most notorious - but there aren't many.

and even this is not a good example for it

the told story is that they followed the usual design process: the models is designed and produced, write the background to fit the model, write rules that fit the background, decide on points, done

but the management wanted that the points are low enough so people can fit 3 in a standard sized army, but they never got a chance to adjust the rules to compensate

Skaven in 7th are another example, were Cavatore told he was asked to write the army book, so he made a quick draft for how he imagined the army to look like according to the fluff, and if this would be ok as a starting point, and his draft went straight to the printer without any adjustments

and from all we have heard later, the workflow is still the same except that the draft is given to playtester at some point, but not the final rules

[Greybeard86]

57 minutes ago, Lurynsar said:

Okay sure. There are other ways to do things. But why?[...]Games Workshop is 100% doing things right in a corporate world. 

That will sometimes suck for certain types of players or collectors for sure, but as a whole it means at least we continue to have a game and support. That’s something that a lot of games out there don’t have a promise of. 

You answered your own question. Because doing what's best for profit is not always aligned with providing a good product and support. That is why we have so many regulations for other more central industries, though toy soldiers is low in the priority of the regulatory bodies.

Accepting anti-consumer approaches from a company that is swimming in profit and has huge margins out of fear of the game being discontinued is not my cup of tea.

I'll say this: while GW still leans heavily on hype and releases, at least they are, in a sense, toning it down for AoS. AoS1 and early 2 was brutal, with constant releases of small and all but discontinued armies. Now they consolidate and that usually means support for longer.

How we approach some of the more cut-throat practices as consumers, how we debate them online, how that shapes our behavior. All of that matters more, I think, than what your comments suggest you think. There is a reason why GW makes an effort to stay in good terms with "influencers".

[nuttyknatty]

Are we still discussing rules? Or how to run a business?🤷🏼‍♂️😍😂

[whispersofblood]

58 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

You answered your own question. Because doing what's best for profit is not always aligned with providing a good product and support. That is why we have so many regulations for other more central industries, though toy soldiers is low in the priority of the regulatory bodies.

Accepting anti-consumer approaches from a company that is swimming in profit and has huge margins out of fear of the game being discontinued is not my cup of tea.

I'll say this: while GW still leans heavily on hype and releases, at least they are, in a sense, toning it down for AoS. AoS1 and early 2 was brutal, with constant releases of small and all but discontinued armies. Now they consolidate and that usually means support for longer.

How we approach some of the more cut-throat practices as consumers, how we debate them online, how that shapes our behavior. All of that matters more, I think, than what your comments suggest you think. There is a reason why GW makes an effort to stay in good terms with "influencers".

There is a legal standard for "anti-customer" and GW is a long way away from that. 

[stratigo]

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

I don't think it's anything as coordinated as a deliberate plan. It's more just a happy side effect from GW's point of view. Balance isn't a priority in GW's design philosophy - they're upfront about it, miniatures come first then they stick some rules on the miniatures that they think fit, rather than starting with a vision of a balanced game and figuring out what rules and minis they need to achieve that vision - and if that means that you get some nice churn as a side effect that prompts people to start new collections or buy new stuff, that's a bonus. But if they were actually trying to systematically distort the balance to promote buying certain miniatures, I think they'd be better at it than they are. 

I think we'd also know more about it. There are a couple infamous examples of the developers being told to deliberately overpower something to sell it - the Wraithknight being the most notorious - but there aren't many. Given how leaky GW is, if it was a regular practice, I think we'd know about it. 

GW barely leaks at all anymore except by design.

[stratigo]

24 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

There is a legal standard for "anti-customer" and GW is a long way away from that. 

Yes the law system written largely to the benefit of the wealthy is the best way to judge things truly.

[Greybeard86]

49 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Yes the law system written largely to the benefit of the wealthy is the best way to judge things truly.

Not even that. That anti-consumer has a "legal definition" is too broad a statement to consider. There are certain practices that are "anti-consumer" and are under consumer protection laws; whether a specific instance falls under that is not immediate.

Nevertheless, GW has done clearly "anti-consumer" things in the spirit of the term. Selling expensive models and supplements for end times was one of them.

Other things are also "anti-consumer" but may not be covered by consumer protection law. For example, if they decided to discontinue suddenly a bunch of AoS1 factions. It may make business sense, but it sucks for the consumers who bought them. The question is then where the line between doing business and "improper practices" that hurt the consumer "more than it is reasonable or desireable from a total welfare standpoint". That is why we try to break and impede monopolies but allow other practices.

That is not to say that, again, something might hurt consumers and not be considered ilegal. But that doesn't make it "good" and consumers certainly have the right to complain openly and react accordingly.

[whispersofblood]

52 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Yes the law system written largely to the benefit of the wealthy is the best way to judge things truly.

Forget it, I suddenly remember why I don't talk shop with laymen. 

[stratigo]

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

Forget it, I suddenly remember why I don't talk shop with laymen. 

 

don't let yourself be willfully blind to the injustices inside the justice system, cause they are many. Ignoring them is the path to darker things. Like the federalist society.

[Sarouan]

Leaving off-topic aside, we'll be trying a multiplayer game this weekend so I thought to use the rules of Triumph and Treason. Then I notice they don't say anything about how to gain command points for the priority roll. Annoying.

Game doesn't seem to work that good once you have more than two sides because everything is thought with that in mind. There are indeed more reactive tools for the player when it's not his turn, but add more turns to the round and it gets troublesome.

Will have to think about something that can be playable.

[Golub87]

31 minutes ago, stratigo said:

don't let yourself be willfully blind to the injustices inside the justice system, cause they are many. Ignoring them is the path to darker things. Like the federalist society.

What I always found interesting with people that I know that are in legal profession is that they never consider flipping the table to be a legitimate option, even when the game is designed so that it is the only logical conclusion (example: monopoly) 😂

[Sleboda]

6 hours ago, Lurynsar said:

Okay sure. There are other ways to do things. But why? Games Workshop has been the big fish for awhile, and now they’re dominating the world. Their growth has been nothing short of insane the last 5 years, and especially the last 2.

And there we have the answer that all those who are disgruntled over this or that decision from GW should read, understand, and accept.

Have they had a misstep here and there over the decades they've been the undisputed champion of miniature wargaming? Sure. But come on, they print money. Their stock rides an ever increasing wave of shareholder value, and every. single. challenger. that supporters claimed would "finally be the one to take 'em down" has been left bleeding, crying, and quivering like a broken baby that's been tossed on the trash heap of gaming history without its mommy and binkie.

Love 'em or hate 'em, accept their plans or don't. They'll be here making great stuff that keeps uncountable hobbyists happy long after the doubters have either given them their bank account numbers or bitterly moved on to some other pursuit.

[Golub87]

19 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

And there we have the answer that all those who are disgruntled over this or that decision from GW should read, understand, and accept.

Have they had a misstep here and there over the decades they've been the undisputed champion of miniature wargaming? Sure. But come on, they print money. Their stock rides an ever increasing wave of shareholder value, and every. single. challenger. that supporters claimed would "finally be the one to take 'em down" has been left bleeding, crying, and quivering like a broken baby that's been tossed on the trash heap of gaming history without its mommy and binkie.

Love 'em or hate 'em, accept their plans or don't. They'll be here making great stuff that keeps uncountable hobbyists happy long after the doubters have either given them their bank account numbers or bitterly moved on to some other pursuit.

Having the market cornered is no indication of quality.

[RuneBrush]

+++ MOD HAT +++

Just seeing if we've any more rules discussion to be had.  Currently feel the thread has focused fairly heavily on a just a couple of points.

[Fyrm]

18 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yes to both. It's in the new FAQ for the core book - "yes, unless the battle pack says otherwise," and the GHB book doesn't say otherwise. So allies and coalition can both go into core battalions. 

Nice!!! That’s awesome to hear!!! Opens up some options for armies that don’t have monsters/artillery of their own to ally them in and still engage with the battalions for them. 

[baiardo]

A clarification, in ghb21 there is only the realm of ghur, the other realms can still be chosen right?

[Christopher Rowe]

59 minutes ago, baiardo said:

A clarification, in ghb21 there is only the realm of ghur, the other realms can still be chosen right?

There are no rules for any other Realm in either the Core Rules or in the General's Handbook 2021. So I'd say no. Which breaks my heart because that Battlemage Ghur would be an ally on every one of my lists.

[Christopher Rowe]

Okay, this is pure theory, and I'm probably missing something, and it would also require a very large piece of terrain to be set up in exactly the right spot, but here goes.

My five-model units of Saurus Guard (movement 5") start a movement phase in Round One. They find themselves 6" from a Defensible Terrain feature that is 20" across ("very large") and which is either not garrisoned at all or is garrisoned by 55 or fewer models from their own army. They use their movement to garrison the terrain or join the existing garrison. They've done this according to rule 17.2.1, which states that they can do this INSTEAD OF making a normal move.

They've just moved 6" across the battlefield.

Round Two. At the end of my next movement phase, I have the Saurus Gaurd unit leave the garrison according to rule 17.2.2 in a spot more than 3" from all enemy units. I do so by placing them 6" from the opposite end of the 20" terrain feature from which they entered.

The movement 5" Saurus Guard have just moved 32" in two movement phases.

What am I missing here?

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Christopher Rowe
correcting a subject/verb agreement error

[Fyrm]

14 minutes ago, Christopher Rowe said:

Okay, this is pure theory, and I'm probably missing something, and it would also require a very large piece of terrain to be set up in exactly the right spot, but here goes.

My five-model units of Saurus Guard (movement 5") start a movement phase in Round One. They find themselves 6" from a Defensible Terrain feature that is 20" across ("very large") and which is either not garrisoned at all or is garrisoned by 55 or fewer models from their own army. They use their movement to garrison the terrain or join the existing garrison. They've done this according to rule 17.2.1, which states that they can do this INSTEAD OF making a normal move.

They've just moved 6" across the battlefield.

Round Two. At the end of my next movement phase, I have the Saurus Gaurd unit leave the garrison according to rule 17.2.2 in a spot more than 3" from all enemy units. I do so by placing them 6" from the opposite end of the 20" terrain feature from which they entered.

The movement 5" Saurus Guard have just moved 32" in two movement phases.

What am I missing here?

 

Absolutely nothing? That’s about how it’s always worked though. Very large garrisons can be a huge movement boost over two turns, if you start by it and hop out the next turn. 
 

there are a number of reasons this isn’t a big deal though. First, you have to start by the terrain. At which point you have to ask, why weren’t you already in it? Also there isn’t a ton of defensible terrain that I know of? Or at least not baseline. There’s a few faction terrain, Seraphon being the biggest so makes sense that’s your example. But then why not start them in the garrison, with the engine placed right in front of the center of the field, just barely wholly on your side, and pop out turn one? Much better speed boost, start a few units in enemy territory. 
 

there’s also ways to shut it down. Have people around the garrison before you can enter it. Have people standing around where you want to exit. It’s nice, but not game breaking. 

[Christopher Rowe]

21 minutes ago, Fyrm said:

Absolutely nothing? That’s about how it’s always worked though.

New to me, but I've not played that many games (none at all in 3.0 yet). Dang! I thought I'd spotted something nobody else had yet! Heh.

Aside: I find the definition of "defensible terrain" a little unclear, personally.