AoS Played AOS (rant) warning: If you like AOS don't read

[NIGHTBRINGER]

as GW has been going to conventions

That is indeed true. Toronto Fan Expo (in September)...

 

[El Caimán]

I totally agree with what you said about gw not listening to feedback and aiming for short term profit, i think this is the main flaw ehich then reflects upon the rest of the issue.

 

[Bainbow]

Might be that it can be balanced, the issue, as I see it, is that GW did not bother to do this themselves.
I mean it is a hobby where you spend a lot of time assembling, painting and playing the game, so to demand, that we ourselves also balance it, is a little much to ask, and from my point of view, GW seems lazy for not balancing it, or at least give us a way to do it. Besides, you would never know if your opponent wants to use the same balancing system, so you will not know what game your are getting into.

The manager at my local GW (cool dude, say what you will about GW itself but this guy is a great guy so don't foul mouth him,) said that part of the reason for GW not balancing the game was so that they wouldn't be held accountable for imbalances where things are not expensive enough and can break the game etc. So you can't come up with an insanely scummy army list and say "hey, it's balanced."
He also brought up how Warhammer wasn't always a points based game.

 

[Khelandros]

So you can't come up with an insanely scummy army list and say "hey, it's balanced."

Could you ask him if 40k can be expected to follow suit in the future?

He also brought up how Warhammer wasn't always a points based game.

I am curious now. I am looking at a 3rd edition rulebook that still uses points. I am assuming this would have to be 1st or 2nd edition then?

 

[Bainbow]

Could you ask him if 40k can be expected to follow suit in the future?
I am curious now. I am looking at a 3rd edition rulebook that still uses points. I am assuming this would have to be 1st or 2nd edition then?

If they were going to follow suit with 40k, they wouldn't tell their staff. Remember how hush-hush AoS was before its release? So I can ask him, but he won't have any response. Though I doubt they will, seeing as how they recently released all that Tau stuff.

And yeah, he's been playing for a looooooong time.

 

[Khelandros]

If they were going to follow suit with 40k, they wouldn't tell their staff. Remember how hush-hush AoS was before its release? So I can ask him, but he won't have any response. Though I doubt they will, seeing as how they recently released all that Tau stuff.

And yeah, he's been playing for a looooooong time.

So... he was told of these design considerations recently then, or just holding back until post-AoS release?

I am skimming PDFs of the older editions of 1st and 2nd edition and from what I am seeing (please chime in if I am wrong):
1st edition seems to be largely scenario-based with much detail per scenario; only one of them uses a point system; the others have detailed balance mechanisms in the scenario itself (e.g. take 5 units of this for a skirmish game; take 10 for a larger engagement; 20 for an even bigger one).
2nd edition has points, but has an interesting caveat:

We believe we have to accept that any points system will fail some
of the time, just because of circumstance. If we are to adopt a
points system it must hold good generally, but the GM is allowed
the option of giving one side more or less points to compensate for
unusual circumstances.

The following system utilises a tried and tested formula which
gives reasonable PVs in most situations. It is fairly easy to apply,
and can be used to cost your own innovations.
​

Considering these rules were released in 1983 and 1984, respectively, I feel rather alienated given that they came out before I was born.

​

 

[Bainbow]

So... he was told of these design considerations recently then, or just holding back until post-AoS release?

I am skimming PDFs of the older editions of 1st and 2nd edition and from what I am seeing (please chime in if I am wrong):
1st edition seems to be largely scenario-based with much detail per scenario; only one of them uses a point system; the others have detailed balance mechanisms in the scenario itself (e.g. take 5 units of this for a skirmish game; take 10 for a larger engagement; 20 for an even bigger one).
2nd edition has points, but has an interesting caveat:

We believe we have to accept that any points system will fail some
of the time, just because of circumstance. If we are to adopt a
points system it must hold good generally, but the GM is allowed
the option of giving one side more or less points to compensate for
unusual circumstances.

The following system utilises a tried and tested formula which
gives reasonable PVs in most situations. It is fairly easy to apply,
and can be used to cost your own innovations.
​

Considering these rules were released in 1983 and 1984, respectively, I feel rather alienated given that they came out before I was born.

​

He was updated on all the AoS things literally the day before AoS was revealed and the rules were put out, when they called him to the head office with some other prominent managers to clue them in. Before that though, he was in the dark like the rest of us.

And yeah, I'll be honest, I think I feel rather alienated too because I wasn't born then either.