The State of the Game

[Riff_Raff_Rascal]

I would like to also remind everyone that GW is in the business of model making, not game design. The low hanging response is to tell GW to get better at rules writing which would alleviate a lot of everyone's concerns and thus make everyone have a more positive take on the "state of the game". 

We have every right to have higher expectations for the company for rules writing in particular but I would surmise that there is something more to the "state of the game" than just rules. The community at large perhaps? Its the reason we all keep coming back to this hobby and I propose is the reason that folks still praise GW when they get something right.  

[novakai]

3 hours ago, Riff_Raff_Rascal said:

I would like to also remind everyone that GW is in the business of model making, not game design. The low hanging response is to tell GW to get better at rules writing which would alleviate a lot of everyone's concerns and thus make everyone have a more positive take on the "state of the game". 

We have every right to have higher expectations for the company for rules writing in particular but I would surmise that there is something more to the "state of the game" than just rules. The community at large perhaps? Its the reason we all keep coming back to this hobby and I propose is the reason that folks still praise GW when they get something right.  

Well I alway hold the belief that GW is a model company first and that they never really had good focus on the rules and gaming part of the hobby. I do think for the premium price that they put on their rule book, it probably fair to expect more from them. Not even in a competitive sense but even content and clarity wise too feels a bit iffy too.

This is a big rant of mine but what always get me is that every army has their release tied to their rulebook release and rarely get anything outside that window and majority of armies get barely anything even when that release happens. if they where just a model company they would just release models all the time and just have an online rule set. I just feel like other company are not as rigid with their release schedule as GW are.

[Clan's Cynic]

In a time when even the majority of "Game first, models second" rulesets have both their rulesets online for free AND regularly update them without charge, I don't see "GW are a model company first" as much of an excuse, especially when they charge the prices they do.

[zilberfrid]

On 3/11/2022 at 5:18 PM, Riff_Raff_Rascal said:

I would like to also remind everyone that GW is in the business of model making, not game design. The low hanging response is to tell GW to get better at rules writing which would alleviate a lot of everyone's concerns and thus make everyone have a more positive take on the "state of the game". 

We have every right to have higher expectations for the company for rules writing in particular but I would surmise that there is something more to the "state of the game" than just rules. The community at large perhaps? Its the reason we all keep coming back to this hobby and I propose is the reason that folks still praise GW when they get something right.  

Warhammer only works because they provide everything in the hobby. If they stop updating the game or models, you get what killed Fantasy.

In my opinion, 90% of their models are not good enough (at all or for their price) as art objects. They decrease in viability for other games like D&D because of their size creep.

Their rules certainly are not good enough in comparison to cheaper alternatives.

Without models or rules, their shops would be empty.

Without shops, few of their paints and model supplies would compete (skulls and contrast paints, not much else can stand by itself).

GW only works if they do it all, that's why they charge top dollar.

Edited March 14, 2022 by zilberfrid

[novakai]

37 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

Warhammer only works because they provide everything in the hobby. If they stop updating the game or models, you get what killed Fantasy.

Their models are not good enough for their price as art objects.

Their rules certainly are not good enough in comparison to cheaper alternatives.

Without models or rules, their shops would be empty.

Without shops, few of their paints and model supplies would compete (skulls, contrast paints, not much else).

GW only works if they do it all, that's why they charge top dollar.

Eh, I kind of disagree with that, as someone who does look at Warhammer model as art, buying one off model just to paint is fine even if it expensive but relative to other hobby it not bad. I know many people who paint model vehicle who buy Warhammer tanks al the time just to paint with no intention of ever playing. Saying their model is not good enough is being disingenuous to where they are to the market and their quality.

what really is expensive is playing the game and building up your army to certain power level with buying multiple troop kit

Gaming is still an important aspect and GW establish themselves by representing a 4 pilliars and representing all 4 make them stronger and that I can agree with. But Warhammer is not an only work one way aspect

[zilberfrid]

6 hours ago, novakai said:

Eh, I kind of disagree with that, as someone who does look at Warhammer model as art, buying one off model just to paint is fine even if it expensive but relative to other hobby it not bad. I know many people who paint model vehicle who buy Warhammer tanks al the time just to paint with no intention of ever playing. Saying their model is not good enough is being disingenuous to where they are to the market and their quality.

what really is expensive is playing the game and building up your army to certain power level with buying multiple troop kit

Gaming is still an important aspect and GW establish themselves by representing a 4 pilliars and representing all 4 make them stronger and that I can agree with. But Warhammer is not an only work one way aspect

You are right. I will adjust the post to "most". Things like Katakros, Triumph of st Catharine, Cawl, Karl Franz on Deathclaw, Mindstealer Phyranx, Ogroid Thaumaturge and a couple of other models are artistic to some degree, but I certainly can't say the same about things like most Freeguild, Beastmen, Stormcast, Tyrannids, Imperial Guard and all space marines (which are just ugly).

Though I don't understand why people that are used to better would go for Warhammer tanks, those things are ugly as sin (Exorcist excluded).

Edited March 12, 2022 by zilberfrid

[Perturbato]

Nowadays it's only about being able to delete the opponent in one turn or wistand the damage, no place for in the middle units/faction/allegeances. A bit repetitive. A few tweaks could solve it but they just don't bother. There is power creep toward new things as "we wan't you to buy this" and don't come to me saying i don't have to play competitive : the new battletome unit won't become less powerfull if i say it's not a competition and we can't ask our opponent always take bad units. There is some old warscrolls and factions that are still about rolling dices. And there is all the meta armies that are just here trying to be the less subjected to dice roll and only wan't to steamroll without letting the opponent any chance. Ah and chaos sucks but you'll say i'm not objective. Just look at the poor advertising toward Nurgle and all the rest we got, it's even true for 40k. But there is no point discussing it because we don't have the right to be angry because "it's a game". Well just looks at the stats, hopefully they never put the tourneys outcomes for the lore because there will only be Order in the mortal realms.

[Mutton]

I haven't wanted to play AoS in months, the reasons are:

1) Vast gulfs of power between factions. Playing against some factions is mentally exhausting, having to figure out how to get a leg up and pull out a win...or simply how to avoid getting completely crushed.

2) If you have a unit that can't "one-shot" your enemy's units, it's usually bad. Much of the game now revolves around instantly blowing up your opponent's forces or hyper-save-stacking to make sure you hardly get touched. Neither hyper offense nor hyper defense are particularly fun.

3) Lack of significant releases. There's been quite a dearth of content since Dominion. Few models, few books, and nothing to get excited about.

We'll see if they can salvage this stuff in the future, I've just been playing other games lately. It's a shame, because I love Warhammer, but at the moment I think the actual game is kind of ******.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Mutton

[Dingding123]

Atm I think of Archaon the Everchosen as a 1+ save with 2d3 healing.  That's my main gripe about the state of the game right now.

[Kadeton]

9 hours ago, Mutton said:

2) If you have a unit that can't "one-shot" your enemy's units, it's usually bad. Much of the game now revolves around instantly blowing up your opponent's forces or hyper-save-stacking to make sure you hardly get touched. Neither hyper offense nor hyper defense are particularly fun.

Yeah, this is a vicious cycle. You need to give armies extreme offence to overcome the extreme defence, which you need in order to resist the extreme offence, and so on. And different players want different levels of lethality in their games, so no matter what you can't please everyone.

Personally I would like to see the lethality pitched a bit lower than it is currently - whole units shouldn't be getting removed all at once by a single unit's attacks, IMO. Conversely, making a round of attacks and achieving no damage whatsoever should be an extremely rare occurrence. Somewhere in between those extremes is the sweet spot for me. At the end of a game, I'd like to see both sides battered and beaten, but still out in force - perhaps one-half to one-third of their original number. Having one side tabled entirely (especially when it's all over by turn 3) feels like a car park brawl rather than an epic battle.

To actually keep that cycle under control, though, GW would need to be:

1. Much more careful about preventing and mitigating power creep;
2. Willing to admit mistakes and make changes to existing warscrolls; and
3. Way less trigger-happy with mortal wound output.

And as others have noted, there is definitely a game length concern. GW seems to be pushing for shorter games by making everything deadlier; having only a handful of models left on the last few turns certainly makes the game quicker, but I wouldn't say it's better. But I also don't think the game can afford to go longer than it currently does, so reduced lethality would have to come with some radical streamlining of the basic mechanics to reduce the time spent rolling handfuls of dice over and over.

At the end of the day though, I enjoy AoS despite its flaws.

[JackStreicher]

Lethality is fine to a degree.

The degree at which it stops being fine to me are the following:

- I spent two days painting up a unit of 30 Models. One Model attacks them and they evaporate in an instant -> creates an actual painting stop for me since my brain foes: Why even bother painting them for 2 minutes board time?

- Lethality on models that are way too hard to take down, an anvil and a hammer at once. For example Archaon, hero Varanguards, maybe even Kragnos in melee.

[stratigo]

On 3/11/2022 at 11:18 AM, Riff_Raff_Rascal said:

I would like to also remind everyone that GW is in the business of model making, not game design. The low hanging response is to tell GW to get better at rules writing which would alleviate a lot of everyone's concerns and thus make everyone have a more positive take on the "state of the game". 

We have every right to have higher expectations for the company for rules writing in particular but I would surmise that there is something more to the "state of the game" than just rules. The community at large perhaps? Its the reason we all keep coming back to this hobby and I propose is the reason that folks still praise GW when they get something right.  

GW was a model company. They're an IP company now.

 

But the reason people come back to GW is because GW dominates the market and a not good game you get to play is better then an excellent one you never do.

[Beliman]

37 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Yeah, this is a vicious cycle. You need to give armies extreme offence to overcome the extreme defence, which you need in order to resist the extreme offence, and so on. And different players want different levels of lethality in their games, so no matter what you can't please everyone.

I agree, but I think it's more complicated than that. Imo, we are stuck in an Uroboros since the end of 1.0:

1. You win by capturing objectives.
2. You need dmg to remove that unit from an objective (mega-gargants).
3. Repeat point 1

Not sure if that's the main problem, but as a KO player, it's an uphill battle.

[Kadeton]

24 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Lethality is fine to a degree.

I agree with your examples of "not fine". Personally, in terms of what I'd like to see from the game, I would also add:

• I have a unit, you have a unit, and both units are about the same points. If your unit attacks mine first, mine will be entirely removed. If mine attacks yours first, yours will be entirely removed.

At that level of lethality, turns in the path of the game happen instantly and there's no opportunity to course-correct. I don't mind the unit which attacked first winning in the end (statistically) but I'd prefer that both units slugged it out for a couple of turns first, and the winner didn't walk away unscathed.

11 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I agree, but I think it's more complicated than that.

For sure - there are really a lot of these cycles which both overlap and feed into one another, and it's extremely complex when you get into the detail. The arms race between ranged and melee units is another driver, for instance, but there are many more. If game design was simple then balance would be easy!

[RuneBrush]

On 3/12/2022 at 6:04 AM, zilberfrid said:

You are right. I will adjust the post to "most". Things like Katakros, Triumph of st Catharine, Cawl, Karl Franz on Deathclaw, Mindstealer Phyranx, Ogroid Thaumaturge and a couple of other models are artistic to some degree, but I certainly can't say the same about things like most Freeguild, Beastmen, Stormcast, Tyrannids, Imperial Guard and all space marines (which are just ugly).

Though I don't understand why people that are used to better would go for Warhammer tanks, those things are ugly as sin (Exorcist excluded).

I think this post actually highlights that what GW make should be considered art as it's highly subjective on what is good and what isn't 😉

[yukishiro1]

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

But the reason people come back to GW is because GW dominates the market and a not good game you get to play is better then an excellent one you never do.

Yeah, basically. Though I think AOS at this point is probably beyond "not good." Maybe "pretty decent"? The core mechanics I'd even call "pretty good" at this point, while the balance has gone from "atrocious" to "tolerable if far from ideal." 

Edited March 14, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Riff_Raff_Rascal]

4 hours ago, stratigo said:

GW was a model company. They're an IP company now.

Fair point. 

"There was once a dream that was GW. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish... it was so fragile. And I fear that it will not survive the winter. 

Players, let us whisper now, together you and I." - Marcus Aurelius

[zilberfrid]

6 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

I think this post actually highlights that what GW make should be considered art as it's highly subjective on what is good and what isn't 😉

Art is subjective indeed. I used that term because I wanted to disconnect the models from being "game tokens" or representations of their IP, which is neccessary if you want to talk about the individual quality of GW products (so models without game, shop, paint etc). Might not have been the best choice of words, but still.

[novakai]

I think problem for me now is that the rule book are too expensive with the recent price hike while also having less new content and their longevity and use being short. ( there are people who like playing old rules but I feel like they are few and far between). Like it doesn’t really matter if fyreslayers book was competitive or had good builds, you are paying a lot for less new content and that army wasn’t really look interesting unless you expanded them 

model maybe expensive but they also have physical value and longevity compare to their books. And GW model have alway been of high quality anyway

[Lord Krungharr]

13 hours ago, Dingding123 said:

Atm I think of Archaon the Everchosen as a 1+ save with 2d3 healing.  That's my main gripe about the state of the game right now.

No such thing as a 1+ save good sir.  1 always fails.  Might be totally negating rend values, but that 1 always fails!  And with Curse of da Spider God so does a 2

 

[NauticalSoup]

3 minutes ago, Lord Krungharr said:

No such thing as a 1+ save good sir.  1 always fails.  Might be totally negating rend values, but that 1 always fails!  And with Curse of da Spider God so does a 2

 

A natural 1 always fails, but that isn't the same as no 1+

Bastilidons literally have a 1+ save right there on the warscroll

[CommissarRotke]

1 hour ago, Lord Krungharr said:

No such thing as a 1+ save good sir.  1 always fails.  Might be totally negating rend values, but that 1 always fails!  And with Curse of da Spider God so does a 2

 

While true, GW has decided to use 1+ on the warscroll wheel to mean "immune to rend" -- nevermind that this ability goes away once the Bastiladon takes 1-3 wounds.

[NauticalSoup]

23 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

While true, GW has decided to use 1+ on the warscroll wheel to mean "immune to rend" -- nevermind that this ability goes away once the Bastiladon takes 1-3 wounds.

That's not true anymore, it was because of that weird core rules clause that said a roll couldn't be modified below a 1. Now it can so you can get a 0 or a -1 on a save roll making it rendable.

atm 1+ saves exist, and they are exactly what they claim to be: you save on a (modified) result of 1. If you roll a natural 1 you fail anyways because of another rule but it's still a 1+ save.

[CommissarRotke]

1 hour ago, NauticalSoup said:

That's not true anymore, it was because of that weird core rules clause that said a roll couldn't be modified below a 1. Now it can so you can get a 0 or a -1 on a save roll making it rendable.

atm 1+ saves exist, and they are exactly what they claim to be: you save on a (modified) result of 1. If you roll a natural 1 you fail anyways because of another rule but it's still a 1+ save.

So...if you roll a 2 and your opponent has a -1 save debuff you still save?

[Ganigumo]

@JackStreicher In regards to your original post, you seem to be dancing around the idea of modular design.

all 3 of the first books of the edition used modular design, as opposed to linear design. (I've been a bit clocked out lately and haven't taken much of a look at fyreslayers/idk, but fyreslayers seem modular, no clue about deepkin)

Linear design is where the incentives follow a linear path (or multiple linear paths), with the buffs and synergies compounding as you continue down that path. (i.e this subfaction buffs <x> unit, this general unlocks that unit as battleline, this other unit buffs <x> unit, etc...) The build paths and synergies are very clear and easy to build. Often a unit in a linear book starts mediocre but can get buffed to be very powerful (i.e grots, skinks, etc)

Modular design is where you design each piece to be largely independent (or maybe a pair of pieces, like a unit + a hero), They don't have access to any unique buffs. Both kinds of pieces can exist in the same book. most aos3 books are modular, but the best example is probably gargants.

 

Pros of linear design

• Controlled build paths
• Easier to build roles for every unit since there's less competition, two units can be very similar but if their synergies are locked behind different linear paths they'll have a unique niche
• Linear build paths mean even books with tons of units can make use of all of them in different paths
• Internal balance is between the linear paths instead of the individual units, made even easier if the playstyles are different
• Easy to build lists for, as the book will naturally guide you down one of the linear paths

Cons

• Compounding buffs can be tough to balance
• difficult to nerf because you essentially need to nerf an entire build path, and overnerfing can break the army entirely
• rigid listbuilding
• layered rules can make warscrolls deceiving and seemingly weak units incredibly powerful

Pros of Modular design

• More flexibility in listbuilding
• Easier external balance because you can appropriately buff and nerf the problem units directly
• Unit strength is easier to gauge in a vacuum, since buffs are limited

Cons of Modular design

• There's a limit to how many useful unique roles exist, which means there's a maximum number of warscrolls until redundancy occurs
• Internal balance is tough without making similar units seem "samey"
• esoteric and tough listbuilding, due to a lack of structure
• It can be tough to make modular units compete with linear ones, since they don't have that kind of buffing power. So they need to either pay a premium or risk being overpowered
• Lack of synergies can make units feel boring, the warscroll is all you get

 

Both types of design can coexist, although it can be tough to manage at times, and they both have their place. I think you might be finding the new books boring because of the modular design of them not lending itself to any kind of cool combos. You get the extra flexibility in listbuilding but it comes at the cost of the cool thematic synergies.

 

In my opinion the stormcast book being modular was a massive mistake. Not only because it had too many warscrolls to pull off the design, but also because its the "starter army", and linear armies are easier to listbuild with.

unrelated to the direct topic but they've also been making some really questionable design decisions in general with AOS3. Stuff like "single rule warscrolls" is good and all if they're well written, but moving a rule from a warscroll to the allegiance abilities (like Venom Encrusted Weapons) isn't a design improvement. There's also a lot of shallow complexity being added to the game, which are things that effect the game and you need to think about, reference, and remember, but don't add any depth to the game, like grand strategies and the new battlescroll. In general I think the aos2 rules were better as a whole. Battle tactics are the one thing that really changed the game up, in a meaningful way, but I'm still not sure if I like them.