Beer & Pretzels Gamer
-
Posts
421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Beer & Pretzels Gamer
-
-
42 minutes ago, Ghoooouls said:
Yea I may be jumping the gun as we have only seen small amounts of info.
It just seems very immersion-breaking for me. I can now have zombies drag enemies down and tear them apart, then turn them into zombies. Then the opponents commander can shout at the dead guy that is now a zombie and he somehow spawns into a second body and gets back up to fight himself as a zombie... just seems silly.
Bloodthirsters of insenate rage smashing people into explosions of gore.... but wait the general is shouting at us lads! Quick rebuild your bodies, find your organs and fight as if nothing happened!
Vampires and ghouls feasting on dead bodies.... but wait no! Come on lads get back up! Fight!
This will have to fall under the “we’re only seeing part of a bigger battle” I guess. In other words the rally represents warriors from disrupted units in other parts of the battlefield joining up with a still intact unit.
Hopefully I can convince myself of this between now and then…
-
At start of COVID picked up an IJ army on the cheap for three reasons:
1) one of our players had always been interested in playing IJ
2) as an elite army it fit the Meta we were trying to build for these Zoom games
3) I’d heard vague rumblings that Orks could be focus of 3.0 providing the potential just as Zoom league was winding down for Warclans to get a new lease on life playstyle wise.
On the first point it worked out great. The player went all in on IJ. Then dived into Big Waaagh!!! Then built off the BS units we’d used fir BW to play pure BS.
On the second point IJ we’re perfect for our elite meta. With the Rogue Idol we had on hand BW became a great monster mash with Pebbles and Bam Bam the Mawcrusha. While BS went away from the elite meta as a change of pace it has been a lot of fun. With the current player rounding out their run (though I’m sure they’ll want to test drive the KruelBoyz too) other players are excited to try them out,
On that third point boy oh boy does it look like that bet has paid off. I’d been thinking Kruelboyz would be a bit of a stand-alone feature, eligible for BW but getting their own thing. I wasn’t expecting a shiny new tome for all of Warclans. Super excited to get the new Kruelboyz and start trying out new ways to Krump.
-
2
-
-
On 5/29/2021 at 8:20 PM, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:
I have a strange feeling there could be a LRL split/Gloomspite Gitz WD aspect to this. If I had to guess there will be a slim Kruelboyz tome with cards, dice, etc. to make a nice clean launch product and then in early 2022 we’ll get the new & improved Orruk Warclans tome with all three and I’m guessing a couple new units for IJ and BS (likely heroes).
With all the struggles lately it just seems optimistic to think they’ve 3.0d all of Warclans. But as long as they are Warclans compatible day zero I’m actually pretty okay with this.
So happy to be wrong here! Cant wait to get Krummpin (Kunningly of course).
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Freejack02 said:
But how bad is it going to feel to burn CAs just so your melee troops can do what they were brought to do?
40k doesn’t make you pay a CA to consolidate if that makes you feel any better. Just has to be towards nearest enemy and max of 3”. So something along those lines solves a lot, if certainly not all, issues…
-
It does feel like something is missing here, perhaps some consolidation action at the end of the combat phase?
As is second pile-in abilities now particularly excellent as a chance to allow you to go all out in first attack and then consolidate with second if you punched hard enough to clear some space.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, RuneBrush said:
Blood Bowl is probably the most extreme example, where the halfling team is super hard to get a win out of.
I like the Blood Bowl tiering system. When it looked like a local tournament was dropping AoS I was looking into the game as that as a different option. Given I’d have a limited time to learn and get ready it was very useful. Think it would be helpful in any system but works better in a “closed system” than an “open one” (recognize Blood Bowl not truly closed but far less open than AoS).
One very interesting aspect of Zoom League, with weekly games and often the ability to tweak lists between every game though is how easy it is to move up and down the difficulty spectrum both across armies and within an army. This requires workable war scrolls but takes advantage of the natural variation in war scroll utility as well as the possibility of identifying new niches.
As AoS was saved only got so far in my Blood Bowl excursion (was settling between Nurgle and the Ork options) but this seemed at the heart of it. All units seemed viable and fit into a niche or two. But the pretty straightforward “risk mitigation” options certain units have calibrate the balance of skill/luck in the game pretty well.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, KingBrodd said:
Doing back to back Megas is work I tell ya!!
So… Three Megas and three mancrushers ambitious? 😎
-
1
-
-
Play 2.0 in Zoom League probably through end of July as we have a friendly bye to 2.0 tournament we’re going to put on by one of our members.
If I’m gonna play Sons there that means building and painting them I guess, while getting in a few practice runs.
If I decide not to play Sons means finishing painting one of the other two (or three…) “in process” armies I’ve got going at moment.
Probably won’t start 3.0 until end of July as I ramp up for a small local tournament in September. No idea what I’ll play there because 3.0 still pretty hard to focus on until I’ve seen the rules and, as important, the new points…
-
2
-
-
Seraphon Steggageddon? Myth or has anyone actually seen on tabletop?
-
1
-
-
Gristelgore can be a lot of fun but also a bit of a one trick pony if you go all in.
My favorite Monster Mash list is probably Stonehorns and Thundertusks in Mawtribes. Very easy and somewhat less expensive to build given start collecting and eBay but lots of different potential directions to take it.
If Rogue Idol wasn’t likely going away I’d also recommend the Pebbles and Bam Bam monster mash of him and a Mawcrusha or two.
Finally don’t have personal experience with it but Turtles and Sharks in IDK looks interesting.
-
3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
Morbeghs Claw is the stand-out artefact in Legion of Night, but I think your list might be too mobility-focussed to really make use of the 2+ to cast bubble
If I switch the extra CP for the Balewind Vortex would Claw on Necromancer make sense? Gives better chance of getting up on Vortex and once there not moving anyway…
Not positive how this army would play but first impression is that I’d be leaving the Zombies, Necromancer and VL covering objectives in my deployment zone whilst the Manny & Prince V Tag Team wrecking ball and Vargheists seize objectives.
-
With Manny the Vampire Nanny arriving tomorrow I have the one piece it looked like I needed to leverage my existing FEC army into some new Soulblight Awesomeness. Proxying Crypt Ghouls fir zombies and had actually based an old vamp lord to be right size as a Abhorrant Archregent proxy which I think makes him fit the new models size?
Allegiance: Soulblight Gravelords
- Lineage: Legion of Night
Leaders
Mannfred von Carstein, Mortarch of Night (380)
Prince Vhordrai (455)
Necromancer (125)
Vampire Lord (140)
Battleline
6 x Vargheists (310)
6 x Vargheists (310)
40 x Deadwalker Zombies (230)
Endless Spells / Terrain / CPs
Extra Command Point (50)
Total: 2000 / 2000
Extra Command Points: 1
Allies: 0 / 400
Wounds: 124
Don’t think this is the most competitive list but working with what I got any recommendations on CT, Artefact, Lore Spells, etc. to make the most of it? -
I’ve never paid much attention to Archaon lists as he fell under model I never expected to own. But the rest of Zoom League surprised me with a NIB version for running the two games a week over Zoom fir last year plus. Don’t know where to start. Any advise re: Mortals? Even better anyway to fit into Khorne Beast Brisket?
-
4 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
On Black Knights: I think they just fell victim to the Ungor-Gor-Bestigor problem. Gravelords have three types of cavalry: Dire Wolves, Black Knights and Blood Knights. Dire Wolves are good, cheap light cav. Blood Knights are tough, hard hitting, elite heavy cav. Black Knights are just the awkward middle ground you don't really want to take.
I’m just digging through tome but I’d even argue four types of Cav having used Vargheists cousins Cryot Flayers very successfully in that role for FEC. But yes “the Gor Problem” is real. Curious if the BR:Be’lakor patch there really fixes anything?
-
Thanks @Neil Arthur Hotep. Think it was the 03312021 episode with NeedyCat. Balance discussion starts at 59 minute mark for those looking for it.
But while it definitely talks about how imbalance is a necessary part of the game (wholly agree) and that it rewards skill (agree again), it refers to it far more as an emergent/natural part of the game design process NOT as an intentional act of going in and sabotaging units to force it. The designer explicitly references that war games need slight imbalances and that things can’t be obviously broken.
So again, if the question is whether there is imbalance I wholly agree. If the question is whether this is good for the game AND business I also agree. But if the question is whether the imbalance arises naturally through a design process constrained by other factors or if the imbalance is caused by GW intentionally sabotaging model X that they just spent a lot of money in producing to satisfy Timmy, Johnny or Spike I am sorry but all the above talk did was confirm that it is the former.
In other parts of the discussion they again highlighted that the models come first. But they also highlighted that they work with “place holder mechanics” and “scaffolds”. That they also accept “ignorables”. The designer specifically called out that fine balance is the last “ignorable” addressed in the process and how any change can throw everything else off.
All this, when combined with meeting deadlines provides a simple explanation for Slaangors, Black Nights, etc. as a natural outcome of the process as opposed to other explanations which require GW to ignore simple IRR calculations in favor of far less certain and complex analysis on top of asking them to ignore the large opportunity costs of using valuable production time for a product that they “know” won’t sell as well.
EDIT: personal highlight was discussion of pink noise and how that enhances the emergent narrative. Love having the right word for that experience.
-
2
-
-
To switch away from business and back to rules it has been interesting to see how GW handles changes vs other areas. GW seems to get criticized for doing both too little and too much (fair enough in different areas). In recent news though you have seen how difficult to change other dynamics can be.
We have Simone Biles achieving something no one else ever has and the people in control of Gymnastics capping the score at what lesser acts achieve despite the scoring scale explicitly supposed to be based on difficulty. Or you have tennis losing the number 2 player in the world because they feel the interviews after are as/more important than the games on the court. You can go back to when Tiger first started playing and golf courses lengthened their holes to push back against his longer drives only for a new generation to adapt to longer drives. In baseball they seem to keep changing the ball behind the scenes to alter scoring.
I think between a regular update cycle and FAQs GW striking an okay balance relative to other examples but I’d be curious how people more involved with the other examples, or who can think of different ones, think GW’s adjustment pace impacts rule quality?
-
I get that a normal quality distribution is “boring”. Yet if we took every WS currently in play and surveyed a representative sample of players and ranked them we would likely discover that AoS WS exhibit they same quality distribution that competitive dynamics almost always produce; a small tail group of excellent WS, a fat middle of quality and even situationally great WS, and then another small tail of trash WS.
Again, this is exactly what you see in competitive sports no matter whether you’re looking at soccer, basketball, ballroom dancing, golf, poker, etc.
It is the same thing you find when you look at businesses for that matter.
In other words in a competitive environment this sorting is a natural effect.
-
Even just look at the differences in production process to understand how the sacrifice business model has very different economics in AoS vs MtG. Trading cards are produced in massive sheets with a large number of different cards on each sheet. Given this the cost to MtG of including trash cards in their productions is negligible.
GW has highlighted the cost of new molds repeatedly. Actual production has large direct and indirect costs. Let’s think about the fact that at a time when GW is losing sales to out of stocks are they really going to take up valuable production time to make models they’ve intentionally sabotaged. And then pay to ship these sabotaged models to stores? And deal with the inventory costs?
Again, none of this is smart business.
-
3 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
I'm sure we did in some thread. Although I stand by the point that by and large, nearly all Gravelords units have a role. Black Knights and Wight Kings are the outliers in that tome, and in this case I would put it down to a mistake rather than designing for mechanically focussed people.
The Slaangor another example that has come up. The contention that GW put the time & money into designing, producing and inventorying this model only to deliberately sabotage it to boost sales of other Slaanesh units is what I object to. Similarly, as I’ve posted in other threads I don’t think they intentionally sacrificed Black Knights to sell more Blood Knights. I just think when things settled down Blood Knights ended up with the better WS and points combo.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:
On a recent Warhammer Weekly one of the designers of Silver Tower (and I believe other GW games? unsure what he was involved in designing exactly) also talked about imbalance providing a payoff for certain players by rewarding them for figuring out the "best" units.
Which I don't think is a bad way to design games at all. I think nobody wants a game where a random list is as good as a carefully constructed one, which has to mean that some units are better at winning you games than others. Hopefully though, this takes the shape of "better in a certain role", instead of just simply "better".
Good, better, best is common practice and that hasn’t been what I’ve objected to if that wasn’t clear. It is the concept of making intentional trash WS that I have objected to. Trash WS unfortunate product of any creative process.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:
What questionable practices? I am sorprised that, given your experience, you call them questionable practices.
They do not think it is questionable to design according to the "rewarding system mastery" paradigm. I gave you a quote of a company admitting to it publicly in a Q&A. They do not think it constitutes any wrongdoing!
It is questionable because of one of the great truths of microeconomics: There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
In other words there is a definite trade off to these practices. In some cases the net is positive. MtG’ business model evolved out of the collectible card model. Because this largely originated out of sports and everybody implicitly understand that regardless of the sport, there will be a few truly great athletes (whose cards everybody will want), a vast majority of average athletes (whose cards team fans will want), and a few bad athletes (whose cards only their family members and completionists will want) and that every pack sold would have an uncertain mix of these cards MtG is operating under one set of norms. If MtG violated those norms by regularly importing GW’s norms by say, only selling the best cards in each new release individually for $160 they would presumably infuriate their customer base who has been conditioned to believe that part of the bargain they’ve made with the company is that every pack they buy gives them a chance at the best cards.
When you switch from a blind buy dynamic to a known purchase a different set of norms apply and using blind buy principles would violate them. For example, Warner Brothers does not intentionally release crappy movies to drive up ticket sales of other movies. Joss Whedon’s Justice League wasn’t deliberately $#@+ to drive up ticket sales of Joker… But despite being a large company with lots of passionate people trying as hard as they can bad movies get made.
-
1 minute ago, Greybeard86 said:
Folks, I think you underestimate companies.
20+ years of successful analysis and the cash flows from it I accrued would suggest otherwise 😉
What I am trying to push against, instead, is the persistent narrative that companies always engage in certain “questionable” tactics. Are these tactics built into some business models? Yes. But maximizing sales doesn’t always require them and more often than not alignment is better than “manipulation”.
That said I have seen how easily mistakes can creep into business models when trying to target demographics. In the Global Financial Crisis, for example, I was talking with a major furniture company with sales orders of magnitude larger than GW. With the consumer struggling they were trying to introduce an offering at a discount to their line up. The designers and CEO were bragging to me how they’d designed a table that most customers couldn’t tell the difference with the higher priced offering so they expected it to sell like hot cakes.
I asked them how many if those sales were going to simply cannibalize sales of the higher priced table? They looked confused and tried to insist all the sales would be new sales. Everybody who previously would’ve paid up for the more expensive table would still pay up. I pushed that certainly at least some people, if they truly were trying to tell me this new table was so hard to tell apart, who begrudgingly would have paid up in the past would now be happy to save 20%+ and buy the good enough table.
I happened to look at the CFO as the designers and CEO tried to keep up the argument and he looked as aghast as I was at the zero cannibalization argument. He finally interjected that obviously there would be cannibalization and he’d follow up with me on it later. That conversation had made it clear that they’d gotten so wrapped up in this new customer targeting that they were ignoring what their own data was telling them. They were so happy they’d hit the KPI of consumers struggling to differentiate this new product from their own higher priced offering that they’d (willfully?) ignored that as a result 10-35% of the customers who had previously bought the higher priced table would now trade down.
I also know that very large companies can be wrong about who their customers are. Before the GFC I was speaking with the CEO of a major restaurant chain. The CEO perceived his business as serving the higher end of clientele. They only opened restaurants in grade A locations in the areas with higher incomes. So when I asked what the impact of growing consumer pressures would be on the company the CEO insisted they’d be negligible because these high end customers would be insulated.
I asked how they’d verified customer demographics? For example, did they use credit card data? The CEO kept insisting they didn’t need to verify anything because they had lines waiting for tables in the best neighborhoods in the country. When I suggested there is an inverse correlation between willingness to wait in line and income, time being money, he literally started leaning across the table and shouting at me about how I didn’t know their business (he was a founder so emotionally attached).
Again it was a CFO who stepped in. Reigned him back in. In the hallway after he acknowledged that I was probably right about the actual customer graphics (the CEO just didn’t want to hear the business he built wasn’t as high end as he perceived it) and sure enough, when those economic pressures increased those lines disappeared…
So I definitely don’t underestimate companies. I just recognize they are run by humans…
-
5
-
-
18 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:
if J haven't convinced you with direct examples from another company of a related industry, I feel there is not much left for me to say.
I love the insight from MtG but while the industries may be related they have fundamentally different business models. MtG lacks both the pricing discrimination GW possesses and only has the branding differentiation if you take into account the larger parent company. Again, from experience covering the retail business I won’t say there is nothing to be learned in contrasting a mid-market specialty store with a luxury goods company (and let’s be clear GW operates much closer to that of a luxury goods manufacturer) but you certainly wouldn’t want to simply transplant the business model from one to the other.
-
If we’re back to talking business I’ll make what I think is the key point from a business perspective. GW has access to two of the most powerful tools in retail for demographic targeting- price discrimination & branding differentiation. With two decades plus of business analysis including extensive periods covering retail which involved getting to pick the brains of some of the best in the business I can tell you these are the things retailers seek after most because they have proven so effective in marketing.
GW is clearly incredibly effective at targeting different demographics using branding via 40k, AoS, Necromunda, BloodBowl, Underworlds, Kill Team, War Cry and various one offs such as Blackstone Fortress or Cursed City. GW is equally effective at offering products across a wide variety of prices from a $15 Savage Big Boss or Necromancer to a $5,000+ Titan. Finally, GW is also skilled at using the intersection of pricing and branding to target products demographically.
In comparison to price discrimination paired with branding differentiation, targeting demographics via WS or rules is orders of magnitude less potent and its impact marginal at best.
AoS 2 - Blades of Khorne Discussion
in Chaos
Posted
Really hoping it isn’t this but you did see a change toward this with Morathi if I recall correctly?