The State of the Game

[Skreech Verminking]

7 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Skaventide @Skreech Verminking was that you?

No.

I took part at a one day event with 3 games max.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

1 hour ago, Skreech Verminking said:

No.

I took part at a one day event with 3 games max.

Ahh well.  Thoughts on max Stormfiends plus Thanquol?  Obviously needs a Doomwheel or three! 

[Skreech Verminking]

1 hour ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Ahh well.  Thoughts on max Stormfiends plus Thanquol?  Obviously needs a Doomwheel or three! 

I personally don’t like it (it is too predictable)

but considering that stormfiends are one of our only really good units, I guess you could say it is fine.

Having seen the latest aos update I really would suggest taking a doomwheel.

it’s movement/charge damage potential is already enough to deal a magnificent amount of damage too almost anything, especially when combined with levitate

[Kadeton]

8 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

AOS is played with 2000 vs 2000 points (or whatever point total you choose). You don't set out to play an inferior force against your opponent's superior force; the whole premise is that you pit equal forces against one another.

The way you've phrased this suggests symmetry - both armies with equal strengths, ability to inflict and resist damage, control the board, etc. Is that actually the expectation?

I would say the premise is that at the same points value, both forces have (roughly) equal chances to win the game. Winning the game is decided by VP - it doesn't matter whether the forces are asymmetric if the "weaker" side has more chances to score the VP they need to win. Those aren't "free points", they require you to overcome significant challenges.

Does the Hunt achieve equal outcomes for underperforming armies? No, clearly not, it would be insane to expect that GW could nail that on their first draft of a brand-new mechanic. Is it a step in a positive direction? I would say yes.

8 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

The reason that forces are unequal is because GW is bad at balancing the game, not because it is supposed to be that way. I suspect almost everyone would prefer their 2000 points to be equal to the opponent's 2000 points than to get bonus victory points for their army being inferior.

Yes, I would assume so. GW is bad at balancing the game - that's why efforts like this, trying to find novel and creative mechanisms to approach balance in different ways, rather than continuing to smash their heads against the same brick wall over and over, are a welcome sight for me.

You seem to be suggesting that GW could snap their fingers and achieve perfect balance overnight if they only tried. I would suggest that the process of (institutionally) getting better at balancing is a slow, tedious process - but this is the kind of change that indicates progress on that path.

8 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

This is all within GW's power to fix. That's why this feels bad. It feels like GW admitting it is incapable of balancing its game so it's just going to give people handicaps instead. 

I don't really understand this view. Handicaps are a totally valid and sensible way of balancing games, and are used extensively across a whole range of sports and board games in order to produce more equal outcomes in friendly competition.

You also seem to be putting "add a simple handicap system" and "balance the entire game" forward as equal alternatives - those are definitely not undertakings of similar effort. This is a minor update - the kind of major balance passes for under-performing armies you're looking for happen when their battletomes are updated, not in a one-page PDF.

[NauticalSoup]

If you wanted to insert a handicap mechanic into AoS it sure as hell wouldn't be this, which mostly warps top table results and doesn't actually make it any easier for Gitz to kill a gargant. 

Every conversation I've had RL about it are people saying they 'hope it doesn't contaminate 40k' or that they might just give up on sigmar for a while and see if it fixes itself. Even if there are some people who don't care or even like this, there are so many that hate it it'll be a net negative for the game.

It's the double turn all over, I don't know why Sigmar's design team is so married to poisonous design concepts.

[yukishiro1]

I don't like it one bit, but I don't think it's honestly all that huge a deal. It's dumb, but it's not game-ruining or anything. 

Well, unless you play gargants. Then it is game-ruining I guess. Not many people will have sympathy for them after what they've been like, but it still sucks to have your army cut off at the knees, at least against other top-tier armies. They'll still stomp the junk armies, but I doubt that's much consolation. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Malakithe]

If there was actual beta testing of rules among the community then stuff like this wouldnt be necessary in the first place. The issue with that is its almost impossible to have a good sample size of beta testing among every faction for new rules. 

[Kadeton]

48 minutes ago, Malakithe said:

If there was actual beta testing of rules among the community then stuff like this wouldnt be necessary in the first place. The issue with that is its almost impossible to have a good sample size of beta testing among every faction for new rules. 

It doesn't really work like this, unfortunately. No matter how much beta testing you do, you will still end up with balance problems that will need fixing after release. My main beta experience is with Wyrd (Malifaux and The Other Side), where they run multiple independent testing groups for their closed betas for months (sometimes years), often accompanied in later phases by open betas where the whole community can provide feedback. Despite doing a huge amount of testing, they still need to put out regular errata to address ongoing balance concerns.

Now, don't get me wrong, Malifaux is a way more balanced game as a result - the additional testing is absolutely valuable and a very good thing to do. I'm just saying that no matter how much effort you put into balancing, it's never "done", and you will always need to issue further errata down the track as new meta-problems emerge. "Stuff like this" will always be necessary.

[zilberfrid]

36 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

It doesn't really work like this, unfortunately. No matter how much beta testing you do, you will still end up with balance problems that will need fixing after release. My main beta experience is with Wyrd (Malifaux and The Other Side), where they run multiple independent testing groups for their closed betas for months (sometimes years), often accompanied in later phases by open betas where the whole community can provide feedback. Despite doing a huge amount of testing, they still need to put out regular errata to address ongoing balance concerns.

Now, don't get me wrong, Malifaux is a way more balanced game as a result - the additional testing is absolutely valuable and a very good thing to do. I'm just saying that no matter how much effort you put into balancing, it's never "done", and you will always need to issue further errata down the track as new meta-problems emerge. "Stuff like this" will always be necessary.

If only GW had a way of distibuting warscrolls over the internet. Free warscrolls, as it were, downloadable from their store...

[Dingding123]

Wisconsin.

[Kadeton]

17 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

If only GW had a way of distibuting warscrolls over the internet. Free warscrolls, as it were, downloadable from their store...

Ah, imagine! Yeah, distributing all their rules for free has really helped Wyrd reduce the pain of making errata and seriously lowered the barrier of entry to the game. I don't think GW is there yet, in terms of its corporate culture - they still think of information as something that they "own".

[zilberfrid]

1 hour ago, Kadeton said:

Ah, imagine! Yeah, distributing all their rules for free has really helped Wyrd reduce the pain of making errata and seriously lowered the barrier of entry to the game. I don't think GW is there yet, in terms of its corporate culture - they still think of information as something that they "own".

It is a change since 3rd, before, warscrolls were freely available. You could play the game with warscrolls and basic rules.

So they were there, but have since regressed.

Edited March 25, 2022 by zilberfrid

[Enoby]

1 hour ago, zilberfrid said:

It is a change since 3rd, before, warscrolls were freely available. You could play the game with warscrolls and basic rules.

So they were there, but have since regressed.

While not everyone likes using the app, the warscrolls are still free on there (including for the new books); I think this is the same model as Malifaux (I don't think their cards are on their website).

Of course, this may change, though I hope it doesn't. I have a feeling the backlash from last time may have made them too nervous to fully pull the trigger yet.

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, zilberfrid said:

It is a change since 3rd, before, warscrolls were freely available. You could play the game with warscrolls and basic rules.

So they were there, but have since regressed.

I'm not sure it's really a regression in terms of attitude. When the warscrolls were available they were treating them like a discounted product to drive sales, i.e. a loss leader. The most basic rules were provided so you could technically play, but if you wanted to play the "proper" game with the real rules you still had to buy the battletome, the GHB, etc.

By contrast, companies which provide genuinely free rules treat them more like an essential service or infrastructure. They simply absorb writing and distributing rules as part of the cost of doing business. It's not about "giving the rules away for free", it's ensuring that the rules and any updates are always available to anyone who needs them.

From the consumer's perspective it's a subtle and possibly academic difference, but it says a lot about corporate culture, IMO.

[Malakithe]

4 hours ago, Kadeton said:

It doesn't really work like this, unfortunately. No matter how much beta testing you do, you will still end up with balance problems that will need fixing after release. My main beta experience is with Wyrd (Malifaux and The Other Side), where they run multiple independent testing groups for their closed betas for months (sometimes years), often accompanied in later phases by open betas where the whole community can provide feedback. Despite doing a huge amount of testing, they still need to put out regular errata to address ongoing balance concerns.

Now, don't get me wrong, Malifaux is a way more balanced game as a result - the additional testing is absolutely valuable and a very good thing to do. I'm just saying that no matter how much effort you put into balancing, it's never "done", and you will always need to issue further errata down the track as new meta-problems emerge. "Stuff like this" will always be necessary.

That is true. As a player of online games, mostly MMO's, since the early 2000's im fully aware of the never ending attempts to balance things. While its damn near impossible to achieve their are ways to at least put in some effort as you mentioned. The thing is GW isnt doing it at all. They just write stuff, release it, get angry internet feedback, then release band-aids instead of addressing the root issues..which is themselves. 

[Malakithe]

They are definitely hanging on by a thread to an antiquated business model of trying to hold on to physical books while the rest of the world is online. And yet they are trying to push for their apps to be used...but the apps still require physical books...theres a lot of questionable decision making going on for sure and none of it makes sense. 

[Beliman]

2 hours ago, Enoby said:

 I think this is the same model as Malifaux (I don't think their cards are on their website).

They have a resource database with all erratas, but I think the last cards are still not there (with the alternative masters).
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/7kw1fe52r9ne0a5/AAD5LlVDDxclGL_bJI2ROuAZa?dl=0

[RuneBrush]

4 hours ago, Malakithe said:

They are definitely hanging on by a thread to an antiquated business model of trying to hold on to physical books while the rest of the world is online. And yet they are trying to push for their apps to be used...but the apps still require physical books...theres a lot of questionable decision making going on for sure and none of it makes sense. 

Or not - there are still a huge number of hobbyists who wouldn't support moving to digital for everything.  Ultimately GW is trying to find a formula that works.  I remember listening to the owner of Future Publishing a number of years ago and one of the biggest mistakes they made was forcing digital magazines on customers.  Some genres it worked really well for - e.g. computer gaming, programming etc.  Others such as guitar magazines it was a failure - however they eventually worked out that most guitarists were more than happy with having the freebie CD on the front as a digital download but keep the magazine physical.  GW are still tinkering with the most 

Personally I'm of the view that the lore component of books needs to remain as a physical book, lavish and lovely to be put on a bookshelf or coffee table for the world to see.  The rules section could be pulled out into a booklet alongside a matching digital component.  The trouble is that this is a massive change and from a business perspective also represents a big risk.

[CommissarRotke]

42 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Or not - there are still a huge number of hobbyists who wouldn't support moving to digital for everything.

What's funny about this is those of us begging for more digital offerings are split between liking the app and wishing it didn't replace digital books. I'm really not a fan of everything going into an app, especially when it isn't clear if purchases are still locked to a single device.

It would be nice to be able to pay 15-20 bucks for a... non-fancy? stripped down? version of rules that were home-print friendly (for updates and errata), and then the fancy/embellished/illuminated book of lore could be a solid 30-40 dollar hardback. That would possibly make digital offerings easier, since they aren't relying on rules being stuck in a fancy epub/pdf to distribute them. @RuneBrush you've made me a true believer in the binder rules method 

[RuneBrush]

5 minutes ago, CommissarRotke said:

What's funny about this is those of us begging for more digital offerings are split between liking the app and wishing it didn't replace digital books. I'm really not a fan of everything going into an app, especially when it isn't clear if purchases are still locked to a single device.

It would be nice to be able to pay 15-20 bucks for a... non-fancy? stripped down? version of rules that were home-print friendly (for updates and errata), and then the fancy/embellished/illuminated book of lore could be a solid 30-40 dollar hardback. That would possibly make digital offerings easier, since they aren't relying on rules being stuck in a fancy epub/pdf to distribute them. @RuneBrush you've made me a true believer in the binder rules method 

I'm in the throws of sorting out what I'm calling my "event" army (i.e. not Khorne or Nighthaunt 😂) and my plan is to make my own binder with all the rules in I need!

[Arzalyn]

1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

Or not - there are still a huge number of hobbyists who wouldn't support moving to digital for everything.  Ultimately GW is trying to find a formula that works.  I remember listening to the owner of Future Publishing a number of years ago and one of the biggest mistakes they made was forcing digital magazines on customers.  Some genres it worked really well for - e.g. computer gaming, programming etc.  Others such as guitar magazines it was a failure - however they eventually worked out that most guitarists were more than happy with having the freebie CD on the front as a digital download but keep the magazine physical.  GW are still tinkering with the most 

Personally I'm of the view that the lore component of books needs to remain as a physical book, lavish and lovely to be put on a bookshelf or coffee table for the world to see.  The rules section could be pulled out into a booklet alongside a matching digital component.  The trouble is that this is a massive change and from a business perspective also represents a big risk.

Honestly this is what I want when I ask for rules outside of the book, print books more for lore and add the rules as a extra for those that prefer the rules in paper. Moving to digital rules don't need to mean they stop printing the book, just that the game balance and updates isn't been hold hostage be book been published. Release the rules online, give some time for they to see play/get errata and faqs when need and them print them. They could easily do a "here is all the factions that got new rules this year" release at some point in the year. It wouldn't hold the game as much, the books content would probably take longer to be wrong/obsolete and they would still get to sell the books to those that want them.

[novakai]

In the end it probably because being making pure narrative battletome doesn’t sell as well and that why GW put everything in one book (rules, narrative, lores, and points) . Is both maximise profit and gives as much value as they can for a physical book. 
 

let face it, majority of early access people when reviewing a book often gives a TLDR of the lore and narrative  and spent most of their time deep diving  into the rules. And this is because their audience and community are just more interested in that content.

[Malakithe]

I hear ya on the lore parts but heres the thing that kinda stops that point...the old AoS app....have we all already forgotten you could buy the entire book, lore, rules, and all, on that app. And it was amazing. I miss that app. I still have it on my phone tbh. Ive been saying for a long time the 40k app should have just used that old app as the template and slapped 40k stuff on it. Im fully in the camp of give me the option to buy the full book online. Yeah there are people that want the actual books and I get that but those people are a dying breed. Figuratively and literally. Im pushing near 40 years old and I dont own a single book of any kind outside of 40k codexes and AoS battletomes. If GW wants its business to survive to bring in new blood they will 100% need to go full digital at some point or be left behind.

[Malakithe]

3 hours ago, novakai said:

In the end it probably because being making pure narrative battletome doesn’t sell as well and that why GW put everything in one book (rules, narrative, lores, and points) . Is both maximise profit and gives as much value as they can for a physical book. 
 

let face it, majority of early access people when reviewing a book often gives a TLDR of the lore and narrative  and spent most of their time deep diving  into the rules. And this is because their audience and community are just more interested in that content.

This is pretty much it. People mostly want the rules so they can play. Everything else is either optional or meh. Most of the time if I want lore info ill google it but rules are in specific places. 

[CommissarRotke]

I'm not sure you should be so quick to make that correlation. As someone who enjoys the lore more than playing, I am fine with listening to rules because the speaker gives their own input while doing so; watching a rules video is a two-for-one special of hearing all the changes plus hearing input on how it might affect my army or how others play against me. It saves me the trouble of having to read through technical articles I won't enjoy.

But for lore? Most of the time I want to read that myself. It's fun to listen to 2+ Tough go over it, but if I'm on a lore-kick I'm reading everything I possibly can, not watching videos of it.

So the aspect of how people want to engage with which part of the hobby is also context. For example, I imagine most people are watching videos for painting, not reading articles, because of how much easier it is to grasp the concepts in a real-time medium versus static images.