I've realized my problem with AoS...

[Filthy Casual]

And hence their problem. Their rising competition do make balanced games. Games Workshop can continue to ignore the obvious as long as they like. I find it entertaining.

It's not a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

True but Rending on a Model with WS3, I3, and 1A does NOT cost remotely the same as one with WS4, I4, and 10A. We covered this. Every little thing that increments MUST cost. It applies to weapons and everything else. If you charge appropriately it all balances out.

Please feel free to try and come up with such a system and I'm sure it won't be a tedious boring mess at all.

[Muninwing]

So... when you say TRADITIONAL WARGAME you probably need to define yourself here...

Because older editions of warhammer had a game master who helped army creation and points weren't really a thing, the battles fought were heavily dependent on scenarios with exploration as a key factor, much like a roleplaying game.

Furthermore most wargames are historicals which don't really focus on points either, they focus on battles with reported unit compositions and again points aren't really a thing, you're playing out a scenario, battles that really happened.

No true scotsman and all that right

two different threads of conversation here...

first, that points are a mechanic for balancing, and that they can be used to greater or lesser extents, and they can assign a simple or complex value to a game... this i believe. but i've also stated that i don't believe it lives in a vacuum, that it is 100% accurate, or that it is the best system. still, just because something is not the best, but you cannot delineate a better option, does not mean that you should do nothing. that's more of a logical fallacy.

second, what i meant by "traditional wargame" was just that... the kind that is reflected in HG Wells and Chainmail and WHF... unit-based tactical games with concerns generally or specifically parallel to those of a leader of a squad or army. even certain skirmish games fit, to a lesser extent. mostly, what i meant is a game less focused on the individual and more on the unit, or the whole army.

i know that there are many different ways of playing, of balancing, and situations that can be competitive and interesting without points... but i also know that if the rules all use a balancing metric effectively, and there is a system of measuring units against each other, then the game can be played in such a way that players of relative skill don't steamroll over one another and an army doesn't play itself and all can have fun.

personally, i think that the Maelstrol missions are a good (if repetitive and simplified) start... and that mission-based or narrative-based scenarios with interesting goals are the way to go. i'd love to play in a campaign where one mission was a take-and-hold: army one only gets half its points on the table, deploys in terrain at the center, and earns points by holding 2-3 objectives (at least one distant from the main). player 2 gets points for eliminating units and for killing the general. then the same two players with the same two armies switch positions and do it again, and add up the total score from both matches.

points might be less important there, but they help.

points can create a match where one big guy goes against a more or less fair set of many smaller guys. or one can include a great hero and the other can use two smaller ones. it's only as good as how actually efficient it is, though -- and that's what has been lost.

[daboarder]

Balancing points costs is never that simple, either you know that and you're being disingenuous or you're not aware.

There are many other factors to it that simple arithmetic increases.

And no, they're not necessary, decades of actual wargames would tell you as much.

Yet other game aystems manage to get very good working balance without all the trouble you claim

[ColeVVatkins]

Slave = Clanrat = Stormvermin... That's my only issue with wound battles.

[Caitsidhe]

It's not a problem.

Well the newest report is out in a handful of days. My predictions about another decline are documented. I am putting forward the notion that it is a problem for them... an ongoing one... becoming more acute with each report.

Please feel free to try and come up with such a system and I'm sure it won't be a tedious boring mess at all.

It is a tedious, boring exercise. That is why we pay OTHER people to do it. When we drop big money for a game, we expect the producer of that game to have already done the tedious, boring work for us so we can just play the game. Games Workshop seems to think they get to charge us as if they did the work, but that we can do it for them. In short, they think we are all mouth-breathing morons. They are slowly but surely reaping what they have sown.

As it happens, I have worked out a system of costs and it does work. The costs per model vary dramatically from what Games Workshop sets in 40K. A low number stay within 5pts +/-. A few other adjustments to bad mechanics in play and the system can be fixed. If they want to pay me for my labor, I will gladly share it with them. Just like Games Workshop, I like to be paid for my efforts. Unlike them, I have reasonable prices.

[Kirsten]

Well the newest report is out in a handful of days. My predictions about another decline are documented. I am putting forward the notion that it is a problem for them... an ongoing one... becoming more acute with each report.

what I don't understand, aside from your spurious, subjective bull**** which we are all used to now is a) why are you even posting here when you clearly hate everything GW do, and b) why are you taking such smug delight in their prophesied demise? it is a clearly a company and system people love, why do you want it to fail? did GW come round and personally kill all your family in front of you? or are you just that pathetic?

[grimmas]

Gw have already told us there's a small downturn I don't see how he's predicting anything. Also it'll have nothing to do with AoS which wasn't released till this financial year

[Caitsidhe]

what I don't understand, aside from your spurious, subjective bull**** which we are all used to now is a) why are you even posting here when you clearly hate everything GW do, and b) why are you taking such smug delight in their prophesied demise? it is a clearly a company and system people love, why do you want it to fail? did GW come round and personally kill all your family in front of you? or are you just that pathetic?

Actually, I'd like to see GW turn it around. I've just come to accept that it will have to get very dark before the dawn. They are literally going to have to hit rock bottom before their corporate culture changes. Their current board and leadership are terrible. Unfortunately, as they are really just a small corporation in the scheme of things, there isn't enough pressure yet to can or put out to pasture, without any power, the lot. If I thought being a Pollyanna on the issue would help, I'm sure I would be right there with the psycho pep-squad and shills. I just know better.

Gw have already told us there's a small downturn I don't see how he's predicting anything. Also it'll have nothing to do with AoS which wasn't released till this financial year

I'm actually referencing another thread in the Wargames Corporate Discussion area. My predictions for the 28th have been up since the day after the last report (long before they started trying to lower our expectations for this one). Likewise, I had predicted the results of the last report too. Lots of so-called, small downturns add up to big loss. While I agree that the damage AOS will do won't show up (big time) until the next report, this one should be rather telling considering that a near constant barrage of new releases for their most profitable game (40K) will still have only see profits continue to dip. It is kind of big picture deal.

[grimmas]

Hmmm causality and predictions are not really the same thing. Still at least we can agree that we don't know the effect of AoS yet

[nsc]

AoS will be an upturn, for sure, just off starter kits that are sold to 40k people to convert into terminators etc etc.

The starter kit sold amazingly well in many areas, sure it's anecdotal evidence, but they've been having trouble keeping stores stocked with the starter kit at least

The other kits and other 'premium' accessories probably will be a down turn, although I did see a high elf player with the dice-cup and the battle gauge (I'm just as confused as you are). So who knows, maybe they will be an upturn.

I've seen people call for the death of GW during every edition change, every codex, every supplement, and I'm more than a little sick of all you chicken littles!