Games Workshop Make Games For Kids.

[YorkNecromancer]

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.

I'm replying as a point of information. To be clear, my core argument were these:

• People who insult things they don't like by using the argument 'it's for children' are using an argument that is invalid (and, in my opinion, an argument that is so worthless as to be beneath consideration).
• The target audience for a game is irrelevant when considering that game's merits.

[daboarder]

I'm replying as a point of information. To be clear, my core argument were these:

• People who insult things they don't like by using the argument 'it's for children' are using an argument that is invalid (and, in my opinion, an argument that is so worthless as to be beneath consideration).
• The target audience for a game is irrelevant when considering that game's merits.

hmmm, interesting take, would that also include those who get upset at others for wanting a serious wargame? few people around here that should take note of that then

[Katharon]

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.

You can do all the list building you want, but if you get outmaneuvered, you're dead in space. Target priority does matter, but again, learning how to properly get yourself in a position to actually do that is more important. Luck, I won't even touch upon because it's not a quantifiable variable in this situation.

Again, there are more tactics in X-Wing than there is in AoS. AoS doesn't require you to worry about placement except in terms of distance (only line of sight mattering in terms of shooting; magic can still have a dispel attempt if within 18"). Flanks don't matter, unit placement in terms of which units might support each other better in a battle-line don't matter, because there is no such thing as a battle-line in AoS. It's 40K's shadow with swords, spears, HAMMERS, and magic.

[Gamgee]

I like complex games because it gives me more to think about.

That's really it.

Now there are people that like more complex games and less complex than me. I know and love 40k for its more complex systems. I would be sad if there wasn't an answer for that level of complexity. I see other games offer it but they don't have the cool over the top grimderp setting of 40k.

That's about it. That's why I don't want 40k sigmarred.

Do I want it simplified? I wouldn't mind a little, but remember. Make things as simple as possible, without making them simpler. ~ Albert Einstein

[Xaric]

Less complexity in the core rules equals more freedom with less restriction equals more complexity in general.

[Gamgee]

Look at FFG as an example.

X-Wing is its entry level in price and complexity, then we have Imperial Assault, and finally at the highest price point and depth is Armada. All of those games remain simple, but offer different levels of complexity. I know this might come as a shocker. Really, but some people like more complicated systems. My shelf is chock full of rule books for DnD 3.5, 5th, Numenera, Cypher System, Super Hero RPG's, World of Darkness New and Old, table top battle games, 40k RPG's, and countless other one of printings of RPG's. Some of these are as simple as rolling a single dice for almost everything to massive tomes of rules to simulate insanity and severed limbs and the effects there of. I've seen my players enjoy pretty much all of them. I've read almost all of them sometimes many times and have no interest in playing the system. I enjoy it. I also can enjoy childish things. I have a few more simple for children themed and styled RPG's like this one about everyone being in school and having real imaginary friends and the adventures there of.

They make games that appeal to niches and support those niche communities. Some are larger than other but all are liked and apprenticed.

All I get from 40k fans is this very black and white. A or B approach to things. FFG is poised to overtake and maybe someday devour GW. For two years now they've been making more cash than GW and they are on a meteoric rise.

[Chris*ta]

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.

I have a friend who's been trying to convince me to watch it for ages, but I saw the first four or so episodes when it was on TV and didn't get into it. I know I'm supposed to give it more of a chance than that, but my favourite shows are all half an hour or fifteen minutes an episode, and watching that much of a show before it gets good seems like hard work to me.

I do love the first two Terminator films though. And I saw 3 on TV recently and, well, it was a lot less bad than I remember.

[Denzark]

hmmm, interesting take, would that also include those who get upset at others for wanting a serious wargame? few people around here that should take note of that then

I'm sure I alluded to this on page 1 of these comments...

[Mr Mystery]

Wanting a serious wargame = no problem.

Expecting every wargame to be a serious wargame = unreasonable expectation.

Making out Company A is run by morons because they've chosen not to produce a serious wargame = well, let's just leave that one there.

[daboarder]

I'm sure I alluded to this on page 1 of these comments...

sorry Den, I only jumped in like page 2 or 3

Yeah I think Youve made the point more eloquently than I have.

Perhaps this works better.

Regardless of the simplicity or complexity of the design, neither are an excuse to poor execution and bad balance?

Few people round here dont seem to get that