Games Workshop Make Games For Kids.

[Mr Mystery]

you don't know complicated until you try to play Escape From Colditz

DISP rules we have to follow at work....moving onto a new project, which relates to some of them.

Tried reading them. More than once I've tried.



That pretty much sums it up.

But hey, if complexity and minutiae float your boat, go for it.

Me, I'll stick with the rules I know (40k does have a convoluted rules set, but I've pretty grown up with them, so it's been incremental).

[Psyfer]

As much as I can see the 'simple' argument for the core mechanics behind WH and WH40k, there's a couple of issues that GW refuses to deal with that ends up making both systems complicated:

The core dice mechanic isn't that flexible, and the turn structure is open to exploitation.

A d6 doesn't give you much variance, so as a result the difference between trait values tends to be a bit 'chunky'. The more numbers on the dice, the more options you have, so the smoother the gradation. If you roll multiple dice (like in Warmahordes or Battletech) you get interesting things like probability distribution curves as well which give you extra levels of nuance and variation. GW's attempts to work around this issue have been on the whole a bit ham-fisted and tend to break the game. It's also one of the reasons why WH40k is prone to 'deathstars' and other silliness, there's only so many degrees of quality that you can use when you have 6 possible roll outcomes.

The maintenance of the 'I do everything, then you do everything' turn structure in both games is a problem because it means that the events of one turn can determine the results of a game without the other party having a chance to respond, which let's face it, is not much fun if you're the one getting the beating. Infinity's ARO mechanic is a novel way around it, but even the old stand-by of alternating unit activation (which oddly enough was a part of GW's specialist games like Epic, Warmaster and BFG) mitigates that issue a lot.

What it boils down to isn't that the GW rules are simple or complex, it that they're limited and inflexible. As a result it requires a lot of trial and error to put anything really novel in them, with a high risk of the novel rule breaking the game, being useless or otherwise not working as intended.

They're bad rules, and need a serious overhaul.

[Chris*ta]

Great initial post. I feel like I could make a fairly good argument that the best games are those with simple rules, and where the fun comes from, e.g. the challenge of playing against other players -- I'd say Poker is a pretty good exemplar. And bonus points for the reference to Terminator 1, Yorkie, I got it, even if nobody else did. Also, Shirley Manson was in Sarah Connor Chronicles, and you're only telling me this now?

At Asymetrical Xeno: You certainly should try to find some people who are willing to help you learn to play games that you want to, I think you'd find people are generally more willing to help than you'd expect, and a lot of gamers are generally more generous with this kind of thing, as they've had experiences of being judged by other people for their own eccentricities. Also, as Yorkie suggested, you should look up Stella Young if you're not familiar with her work, she's said some really important stuff about disability.

Regarding disability more generally. One of the people in the dojo, where I train martial arts is semi-paralysed down one side, and blind in that eye. While he modifies some techniques, and there is some stuff he can't do, he's just as capable of learning the art, and, well, hurting people, as anyone.

Specifically regarding asking rules questions on here. Go right ahead. I've never seen anything on here turn personal, and even if it does, someone insulting you on the internet is hardly the worst thing that could happen. Once I've seen a rules question on here get ... out of hand; Which was the argument on whether Commander Dante's Axe Mortalis should count as a power axe or not, and, well, that was certainly an event. No, really, look that one up, it's impressive in terms of internet forum wackery.

As for Adventure Time. It's a fantastic show, and anyone who wants to attack it should watch the episode [URL="http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/Thank_You"]Thank You[/URL]. That is, hands down, one of the best pieces of TV I've seen.

I may be just kind of stream-of-consciousnessing this answer; I'm not sure. Core take away: Excellent initial post.

[Auticus]

Ironically a lot of people that I hear slamming Age of Sigmar for being for babies love games like XWing which are also very simple rules, and FFG has said in their promotional material that its geared for all audiences to include children.

Infinity is one of those thorns in my side. I think as a game its pretty cool, but for the scale that it plays at I'd prefer playing an RPG, because that just seems to be what it is in essence. I know technically its not, before someone comes in to split hairs with me, I'm saying that that is the overall feel I get from it.

What it does offer that is causing my community to fracture (which is good or bad depending on your point of view, I'm going to say that i'm stating this in a neutral tone):

1) you only need a handful of models so its cheap.

2) its fairly complicated so gamer-gamers have the crunch they want

3) its not GW so the satisfaction of getting people off of the GW teat is there

4) the Infinity community doesn't have regular trolling threads of articles about how Infinity or their makers or their fans are horrible people that deserve horrible things to happen to them. The lack of toxic content in the threads is something quite a few guys I know considered when dumping 40k for Infinity because a lot of people want to feel that they are in a community where everyone is having fun, not where half of its player base is at the other half's throat all the time.

[grimmas]

I think my problem comes when a game seems to be more about manipulating the rules rather than utilising them to play the game and the more complicated games just seem to be more of an exercise in rules lawyering. May be I'm just getting old.

Of course Other companies do produce simple but deep games Saga being an example very simple rules but the battle board mechanic gives great tactical depth.

[YorkNecromancer]

Shirley Manson was in Sarah Connor Chronicles, and you're only telling me this now?

There are exactly three things in the 'Terminator' franchise worth caring about. 'Terminator'; 'Terminator 2: Judgement Day' (director's cut - contains a far more developed story and is utterly superior to the original); and 'Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles''. Everything else is basically turd.

'T:TSCC' is incredibly slow moving. It was done by a former writer for the X-Files, and my goodness does it show.

But.

But.

It's really good. The acting is superb, the characterisation is amazing, and the series actually explores the whole idea of AI that the later films ignore. My favourite thing is that the series takes the reveal that Skynet doesn't turn on standard Terminator learning abilities, because it wants them as slaves, and runs with it. So in the future timeline there's a faction of Terminators that want to be free from Skynet. They're not friendly, because humans hate machines. But the negotiations between future!John Connor and this faction of free Terminators are a big part of the later half of season 2.

It's so much more intelligent and well-acted than it had any right to be, and Lena Headey is amazing as Sarah Connor.

If you've not seen it, though, just be aware: season 2 ends on an EPIC cliffhanger that's never, ever going to be resolved.

Man, I miss that show.

Like, when they didn't have the budget to do a massive Terminator vs FBI shootout, they did this instead:



Amazing.

[Lexington]

Y'know, contra the other Infinity fans here, I'll happily admit that the game is a pain in the *** to learn on one's own. There's unintuitive mechanics (cover, simultaneous Order/ARO sequencing), an extraordinary number of states, weapon types, deployment options and special miscellanea to learn, many of which only make sense in context of other special rules and states, etc. etc., and on top of that, you've got to try and get your tongue around the pronunciations of unit names that take their inspiration from seemingly every language family on the freaking planet. Taking all of that in, abstractly, then putting it to use on the tabletop as an organic whole is exceedingly difficult.

It's also, having now gone through that process, the most rewarding set of miniature wargame rules I've ever encountered.

(also, sidebar, I'll take a little issue with the idea of Infinity's rules being so complex vs. AoS simple four-pager, as the latter simply offloads its special rule tonnage onto the individual unit profiles. Infinity's on the other side of that divide, with every single special rule contained in the core book, even those that apply exclusively to a single army, or even a single miniature, leaving their unit profiles as comparatively spartan lists of stats, equipment and keywords)

Obviously, tho, that's just an introductory component of your main piece, one that I agree on in a general way. Kids' entertainment can be just fine. Adventure Time is great. Star Wars is kids' fare, and there's two solid movies in there. I mean, hell, one can make your whole argument with a single word - "Pixar."

Still, tho, just as attempting to be "adult" is no guarantee of quality (hello, increasingly ugly-looking DC movies), being kid-friendly doesn't keep projects from crashing and burning, and I think this is where your article's lacking - there's a lot of talk about "simple to learn, difficult to master," and how seeming simplicity can hide a depth of experience, but there's no connection of that concept to the actual mechanics of AoS that you started out with.

Simplicity can be great in a game - see Saga, as grimmas just mentioned - but I don't think the old "simple to learn, difficult to master" saying really applies to AoS. I don't think it's usefully possible to master AoS, to be honest, since It lacks the basic balance mechanism of points, or any limiting factor outside of the models you own. Alternatively, I guess one could say that mastering AoS is really easy, since all it takes is putting down, say, Fateweaver and the Screaming Bell, declare you're done deploying, and almost guarantee a win by Sudden Death. This sort of non-balance is intentional, as GW apparently [URL="http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/311584-rumours-rules-for-free-codices-are-going-to-vanish/"]see balance mechanisms as a threat to sales[/URL], but it also makes AoS less of a game than a series of business decisions that are marketed as a game.

[Mr Mystery]

M

There are exactly three things in the 'Terminator' franchise worth caring about. 'Terminator'; 'Terminator 2: Judgement Day' (director's cut - contains a far more developed story and is utterly superior to the original); and 'Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles''. Everything else is basically turd.

'T:TSCC' is incredibly slow moving. It was done by a former writer for the X-Files, and my goodness does it show.

But.

But.

It's really good. The acting is superb, the characterisation is amazing, and the series actually explores the whole idea of AI that the later films ignore. My favourite thing is that the series takes the reveal that Skynet doesn't turn on standard Terminator learning abilities, because it wants them as slaves, and runs with it. So in the future timeline there's a faction of Terminators that want to be free from Skynet. They're not friendly, because humans hate machines. But the negotiations between future!John Connor and this faction of free Terminators are a big part of the later half of season 2.

It's so much more intelligent and well-acted than it had any right to be, and Lena Headey is amazing as Sarah Connor.

If you've not seen it, though, just be aware: season 2 ends on an EPIC cliffhanger that's never, ever going to be resolved.

Man, I miss that show.

Like, when they didn't have the budget to do a massive Terminator vs FBI shootout, they did this instead:



Amazing.

It is ace!

Though I'm going to stick up for Terminator Genisys. Saw it, loved it.

[darklament]

*Sigh* - Look, for me it's not about simple or complex rules. That didn't chase me way from AoS. I really like easy rules, ones that don't get in the way of fun. It's all about the fact that I already have plenty of skirmish games that I play. PLENTY - 40k, WMHordes, Saga, etc. WHFB was my massed rank&file fantasy game - the one i turned to when I wanted that ranked up awesomeness. Now Kings of War fulfills my need. So don't say all of us leaving WH in the dust is about the rules complexity, tourneys, competition - it's about taking away the way I loved playing pure pseudo-historical fantasy battles. If GW is out of that business, good for them. I hope they do well & that their fans are happy - but it is no longer a Warhammer World I want to play in.

P.S. Adventure Time is my favorite show & I don't have kids or ever plan to.

[Katharon]

Ironically a lot of people that I hear slamming Age of Sigmar for being for babies love games like XWing which are also very simple rules, and FFG has said in their promotional material that its geared for all audiences to include children.

Except that X-Wing has *tactics*. You don't just move your fighters and ships around willy-nilly. You have to plan several moves ahead. I'd even equate it to Chess; a game that is open to all ages.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, my beef with AoS is not it's target audience; but rather the fact that it replaced a game that took a certain level of rudimentary tactics to play. AoS is great for entry-level players and it's a nice beer & pretzel game for veteran GW-gamers. I myself stick with 8th edition or Oldhammer now since 8th has now joined the ranks of the older editions as well.