Games Workshop Make Games For Kids.

[Mr Mystery]

AoS has similar considerations though.

Not being safe in combat, charging not always being the default option. Even Battleshock has changed how games are won - no more hoping to Steadfast your way to victory, the more casualties you suffer, the more run away.

Stuff has changed, that's not the same as losing stuff.

And the whole planning advance thing in X-Wing is easily derailed by my own 'fly it like you stole it' play style. If I have no plan and if I'm honest, no idea what I'm doing, second guessing me becomes really, really hard and more a matter of luck than judgement

[spiralingcadaver]

To start off, I think there's nothing wrong with simple games. In fact, I'd say that the games I've been most impressed with are ones that streamline the process. X-wing and Infinity are both smart, relatively simple (despite the OP's complaints) games, that very lightweight gamers I've played with have learned quickly. Also, my favorite game is probably Malifaux, but I think its biggest failing is overcomplexity.

In that regard, I agree that AoS's rules (minus the "dance around" or "be a man" varieties) were a big step in the right direction... Except then there's that bit on structure.

I think the OP's argument is flawed, in that they weren't looking at the real problem, in my opinion, which isn't simplicity but that there's no balancing element, therefore it isn't a game. Without any system of measuring balance (points even down to 1 point per unit; 2 points per strong unit; video game lives; RPG challenge levels, cards you start with the same volume and rotate positions; etc.) there's no way of measuring the game, and when one person can take 50 times the power of the other force. The counterargument is "don't play with jerks. But my response to that is GW's core balancing mechanic consists of "make up your own... game?"

It's like, I could roll around some toy soldiers with someone else and say "pew pew! those guys die on a 4+-- they do!" and then he says "but I've got a tank! kablooie! your guys can't kill my tank unless you roll 2 6's!" and then that gets old when I can't kill his tank, so we agree I get two tanks!

Which is perfectly fine if you're 6 or something and want to pretend you're playing a game and have grasped that chance is fun instead of things automatically succeeding, but it's like GW is giving you the stats for you to play with their toy soldiers without just hitting them with each other, not like they're making a real game.

I'm not talking about perception "of GW is for kids, I play cool games!" --I play 40k as my go-to casual game, and I consider casual a perfectly valid mindset mindset because I don't always want mind-straining decisions when pushing around toy soldiers. But, seriously, I don't see how it's a game. It feels like a pastime. My complaint isn't the age or target audience perception, but the lack of a core mechanic basically every game has.

[Path Walker]

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.

You have to plan ahead in Age of Sigmar too. Just dismissing a part of the game because its different to another game is daft.

There are tactics in Age of Sigmar, you just haven't played to find them.

- - - Updated - - -

To start off, I think there's nothing wrong with simple games. In fact, I'd say that the games I've been most impressed with are ones that streamline the process. X-wing and Infinity are both smart, relatively simple (despite the OP's complaints) games, that very lightweight gamers I've played with have learned quickly. Also, my favorite game is probably Malifaux, but I think its biggest failing is overcomplexity.

In that regard, I agree that AoS's rules (minus the "dance around" or "be a man" varieties) were a big step in the right direction... Except then there's that bit on structure.

I think the OP's argument is flawed, in that they weren't looking at the real problem, in my opinion, which isn't simplicity but that there's no balancing element, therefore it isn't a game. Without any system of measuring balance (points even down to 1 point per unit; 2 points per strong unit; video game lives; RPG challenge levels, cards you start with the same volume and rotate positions; etc.) there's no way of measuring the game, and when one person can take 50 times the power of the other force. The counterargument is "don't play with jerks. But my response to that is GW's core balancing mechanic consists of "make up your own... game?"

It's like, I could roll around some toy soldiers with someone else and say "pew pew! those guys die on a 4+-- they do!" and then he says "but I've got a tank! kablooie! your guys can't kill my tank unless you roll 2 6's!" and then that gets old when I can't kill his tank, so we agree I get two tanks!

Which is perfectly fine if you're 6 or something and want to pretend you're playing a game and have grasped that chance is fun instead of things automatically succeeding, but it's like GW is giving you the stats for you to play with their toy soldiers without just hitting them with each other, not like they're making a real game.

I'm not talking about perception "of GW is for kids, I play cool games!" --I play 40k as my go-to casual game, and I consider casual a perfectly valid mindset mindset because I don't always want mind-straining decisions when pushing around toy soldiers. But, seriously, I don't see how it's a game. It feels like a pastime. My complaint isn't the age or target audience perception, but the lack of a core mechanic basically every game has.

Not every game has points, it relies on the social construct of opponents respecting each other, like most games. A game is not always a competitve experience, if you think CRs in RPGs were for that, thats a real shame because you're obviously playing against a GM rather than with them.

[spiralingcadaver]

I didn't say that. Balance doesn't necessarily mean competitive balance, I'm referring to it as, "this is approximately the right level for characters to take on."

I'm saying, there's no measure of approximate power to approximate power in AoS. (And to clarify, I consider RPGs collaborative- no- I'm not fighting the DM. There are games for that, too, but I don't like them. But, there are challenge ratings so DM's can gauge at a glance that level 3 players are probably going to get wrecked by a dragon without it being fun, or that 5 giant rats won't create a very intense fight for level 8 players... or that a cr 8 encounter for level 6 players is actually probably too hard, rather than a close battle.)

I've thought hard, and maybe I'm missing something, but can't think of a single game that doesn't use some sort of basic composition/recommended equality/balance mechanic, even if it's stuff like "this scenario is going to be unbalanced b/c it's a last stand" or "player 3 gets a handicap since he lost last game" or "this round, everyone is against player 2" or "everyone reveal their guess on '...scissors' !"

[Auticus]

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.

I have played both. I played X Wing competitively. I played it casually. I will say that "tactics" in xwing are essentially a small handful of things:
1) your list building ability / creating your combos
2) target priority
3) getting lucky with the dice

In Age of Sigmar I also do not move my models around willy-nilly. Its definitely not some super deep tactical simulation, but neither is it throwing models forward however you want while guzzling mountain dew and cheetos and making pew pew noises. In fact, the people that DO play like that typically lose because Age of Sigmar is more about positioning for the charge and target priority (and getting lucky with the dice) and knowing what combos to include and pop off.

[bubbles15]

Just to say thank you to the original poster. As we get older life grabs us and we stop having fun. We stop living, frightened that sitting on a play mat and bashing cars together is somehow wrong.

For me, just about all my hobbies were disapproved of by my mother and so at a young age I wasn't allowed to spend my earned money on anything I enjoyed. Even my books were packed away in the attic. When my mother last visited she actively disapproved of two rooms of my house being filled with books.

With all the angst and fear - and it is fear - surrounding having fun we have all forgotten why we play. All the 'tournament' 'competitive' wafflers just use games to boost their ego. Complicated doesn't mean good and good doesn't mean complicated. My thanks.

[Kirsten]

yeah my mum for years asked 'aren't you too old for this now?' when it went on my birthday list. she seems to have got the hint now though, after 18 years of collecting, I am just getting warmed up

[Path Walker]

I didn't say that. Balance doesn't necessarily mean competitive balance, I'm referring to it as, "this is approximately the right level for characters to take on."

I'm saying, there's no measure of approximate power to approximate power in AoS. (And to clarify, I consider RPGs collaborative- no- I'm not fighting the DM. There are games for that, too, but I don't like them. But, there are challenge ratings so DM's can gauge at a glance that level 3 players are probably going to get wrecked by a dragon without it being fun, or that 5 giant rats won't create a very intense fight for level 8 players... or that a cr 8 encounter for level 6 players is actually probably too hard, rather than a close battle.)

I've thought hard, and maybe I'm missing something, but can't think of a single game that doesn't use some sort of basic composition/recommended equality/balance mechanic, even if it's stuff like "this scenario is going to be unbalanced b/c it's a last stand" or "player 3 gets a handicap since he lost last game" or "this round, everyone is against player 2" or "everyone reveal their guess on '...scissors' !"

Thats why they use model count as an approximate measure of worth, its quick and easy, you're thinking of it wrong.

Try it first.

[grimmas]

Thats why they use model count as an approximate measure of worth, its quick and easy, you're thinking of it wrong.

Try it first.

I've been thinking how about we think like GW and just total the cost of the forces using the current prices on the website and use that as "points". Obviously use the same currency. It's a pretty common complaint that they price elite units higher than rank and file ones I think we could make it work for us.

[Denzark]

I think the OP's argument is flawed, in that they weren't looking at the real problem, in my opinion, which isn't simplicity but that there's no balancing element, therefore it isn't a game.

British Bulldog isn't balanced, but it is simple and it is a game.