|
Post by netdragon on Jan 15, 2019 19:13:36 GMT
Fav: Ruleset is great for skirmish games. Great setting. Least: Bad, uninspiring, repetitive, ameritrash unit and scenario design. Using "design space" to nerf existing models instead of planning ahead. Constant rules changes. Overgrown game size to what the ruleset actually supports and was designed for. No complexity tiers of play. Horrible distribution decisions. No volunteer program. No sales/makreting/desing team coordination.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Jan 16, 2019 8:26:57 GMT
The funny part is that it is the meta which does more to establish the barrier for entry than PP does. GW's entry point is not dissimilar, if not worse, but it's not complained about as much. Wonder why... Because it's a dead horse. GW is expensive, everyone knows. Though they have some pretty aggressively priced AoS starters if I am to believe my friends.
|
|
shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Jan 16, 2019 8:54:08 GMT
Favorite things: really good core rules design and multiple ways to win any game. wonderful setting filled with characters and stories I still go back and read cause awesome! (apotheosis is still one of my favorite books to go back and read through, just for the fluff and descriptions in it.) Disliked things: the elite crowd, absolutely zero hobby focus on the game, power creep and balance issues (the fact that we live in a world where H3 just doesn't matter cause shit is just better than her now blows me away) and cost. it's gotten more expensive than GW games. The funny part is that it is the meta which does more to establish the barrier for entry than PP does. GW's entry point is not dissimilar, if not worse, but it's not complained about as much. Wonder why... Because it's a dead horse. GW is expensive, everyone knows. Though they have some pretty aggressively priced AoS starters if I am to believe my friends. Believe your friends. through those starter bundles, I was able to build my death army at 2500 points (which is really a standard game plus extras for variety) for the cost of my Armored Korps army. That's no bullshit, either. And my death army isn't just "starter box models" it includes all the cool stuff, like Nagash, both types of Morcai, Necromancers, Wolves, skelemans, and lots of other stuff, including arkhan and a mortise engine. it's all new in box. My AK army was just as expensive and had I known, I would have just bought another AoS army for the cost of my AK army. Before you buy your next theme force, you should get a demo game in or two of AoS. it's really good, and depending on the army, very, VERY cheap to get in and play a meaningful army with. thats not to say you should stop playing WM, but if it does interest you at all, you really should, it's a good game.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 16, 2019 14:27:12 GMT
The funny part is that it is the meta which does more to establish the barrier for entry than PP does. GW's entry point is not dissimilar, if not worse, but it's not complained about as much. Wonder why... Because it's a dead horse. GW is expensive, everyone knows. Though they have some pretty aggressively priced AoS starters if I am to believe my friends. My point was that I don't know anyone else who really thought that PP was cheap, either.
I've always maintained that WMH was more expensive per model, they just didn't require the same number of models, especially compared to Fantasy Battles. AoS is a bit different, but it isn't as concentrated on numbers for a combat bonus as Fantasy Battles was, just a survival bonus (i.e. harder to kill a unit of 40 than a unit of 10).
In a way, that expense is just more obvious with WMH since each box is more expensive, so to me it feels more expensive to work with.
So, I guess that some people thought PP was cheaper over all, but Mk 3's War points have made it so you can put more models on the table, increasing overall army sizes, and that's not even considering what Themes have done for putting more Command, Solos, and Weapon Crews on the table, either.
|
|
shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Jan 16, 2019 15:54:22 GMT
I've always maintained that WMH was more expensive per model, they just didn't require the same number of models, especially compared to Fantasy Battles. AoS is a bit different, but it isn't as concentrated on numbers for a combat bonus as Fantasy Battles was, just a survival bonus (i.e. harder to kill a unit of 40 than a unit of 10). In a way, that expense is just more obvious with WMH since each box is more expensive, so to me it feels more expensive to work with.
So, I guess that some people thought PP was cheaper over all, but Mk 3's War points have made it so you can put more models on the table, increasing overall army sizes, and that's not even considering what Themes have done for putting more Command, Solos, and Weapon Crews on the table, either.
Themes are a huge part of cost bloat. With themes not allowing much more than a few models to overlap between list to list, it has almost doubled the cost of the game. AK list, save for battlegroup, maybe, doesn't overlap with anything in WGK, so...thats going to take two completely (almost separate lists) and even then, you need multiples of different models, because themes create spammy environment, where just to fill out the points, you need to take 3 of this, and 2 of that. and like you said, the fact that you can get so much more, and the cost on new stuff has gone up as well, man, its actually cheaper, by a measurable amount, to play a GW game. especially when AoS skirmish and Killteam are so damn good. (yeah, I'm looking at you CoI)
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jan 16, 2019 16:18:24 GMT
I think that the massive increase in Warnoun points have done more to increase the cost of a WMH than the Themes, but that really depends on the Theme. Those Themes which only provide Solos generally don't see a large uptick in cost. It's those that add in effective Weapon Crews which cost more than the average solo which have done that.
Of course, for my Skorne, the massive power and prevalence of the mega-turtle has done more to raise that army's costs than anything else. Imagine fielding a demi-company of Marines, and then bringing in two Knights as well because those Knights cost the same as a Predator (though, in this case, they would take hits like a Predator...).
|
|
mrtuna
Junior Strategist
Posts: 117
|
Post by mrtuna on Jan 17, 2019 0:06:43 GMT
Cost matters to different people.
To some people their war game budget may be $10 a month.
To someone else it’s far more. Personally I budget $500 per month for stupid hobbies. I can easily buy a full theme force every month. Changing the price up or down has no impact to me.
My top priority is people to play with. Everything else comes second.
|
|
shiver
Junior Strategist
Posts: 150
|
Post by shiver on Jan 17, 2019 2:12:57 GMT
Cost matters to different people. To some people their war game budget may be $10 a month. To someone else it’s far more. Personally I budget $500 per month for stupid hobbies. I can easily buy a full theme force every month. Changing the price up or down has no impact to me. My top priority is people to play with. Everything else comes second. For me, its not the dollar amount, its the perceived value. I can buy half of a pair to go play in a tournament with or I can buy everything in need plus then some to go play in a tournament. Sure, in WMH i will eventually end up with two lists, but its two lists to play the same faction. Or I can pay just about half of that and play in an event in this other game. My wife is a lead accountant for a credit union, I don't do too bad for myself, so it's not about who can spend what, it's about what the value is for the dollar, cause time has shown us that dollar amounts dont mean as much as perceived value for that dollar.
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Jan 17, 2019 8:51:54 GMT
shiver It's not mandatory to bring 2 lists to a Steamroller, nor is it mandatory that they are both in a different theme (or in a theme at all). Sure, you're "handicapping" yourself and/or opening up yourself to a hard counter, but that also happens in the single list environments of other systems, right? Also, in casual games you just play whatever you want, so it doesn't matter how valid your "pair" is. And, like you said, if you keep expanding your collection you will end up with 2 lists anyway. It's a bad perception that you need 2 fully competitive lists from the get-go. People need time to grow into any game system.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Jan 17, 2019 10:17:03 GMT
For me, its not the dollar amount, its the perceived value. I can buy half of a pair to go play in a tournament with or I can buy everything in need plus then some to go play in a tournament. Sure, in WMH i will eventually end up with two lists, but its two lists to play the same faction. Or I can pay just about half of that and play in an event in this other game. My wife is a lead accountant for a credit union, I don't do too bad for myself, so it's not about who can spend what, it's about what the value is for the dollar, cause time has shown us that dollar amounts dont mean as much as perceived value for that dollar. Agreed. It's not if I have the actual money to pay, it's whether I feel like the company wants to prey on me with unreasonable pricing or like it's just isn't worth the money.
Most people can afford a loaf of bread costing 50$ but I don't think anyone would buy it (that's unless they really enjoy being leeched off).
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Jan 17, 2019 13:02:06 GMT
Favorite: focus/fury/order/buff management.
Least favorite: the amount of non-game micromanagement, like playing out every single template attack in a unit, lots of different tokens/templates in general, etc. Feels like half the time you're playing the game and half the time you're doing engineering work with measurement tools.
|
|
|
Post by creamster on Jan 17, 2019 14:20:25 GMT
Favourite - Rules, including 2d6 and boosting rolls. Build around your army leader is great fun.
Dislike - Themes. Free points (and CID discounts to an extent) mean games are mk2 65 points in size and normally with no crossover, you need to buy/paint/carry a complete separate 2nd list.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jan 17, 2019 15:55:45 GMT
I'm a massive fan of the 2d6 system combined with the available boosts (especially charges). It means there is a good distribution of statistical probability, but boosting means you can expend resources to throw the odds in a limited manner. Makes for a lovely tactical system compared to 'throw more dice' things.
I dislike themes. Not as a concept; done properly they could be great for the game. But in actual execution they are abysmal; they effectively reward you bringing a hundred knives by giving you more knives, which promotes spam lists but doesn't actually improve your army much.
|
|
Ganso
Junior Strategist
Posts: 932
|
Post by Ganso on Jan 17, 2019 17:43:36 GMT
Most people can afford a loaf of bread costing 50$ but I don't think anyone would buy it (that's unless they really enjoy being leeched off).
What's wrong with people freely giving their money away for something they enjoy? At this point I think I've spent just as much money on things around WM/H as I have on miniatures. Things other people don't find any value on, like my 5 Battlefoam bags (and all the custom cut Foam I ordered), my Kolinsky Sable brushes, my airbrush setup (I already own more airbrushes than I have arms), and just this weekend my wife and I went to Ikea and spent several hundred dollars on cabinets for my hobby supplies (because I was tired of keeping them in stacks of plastic containers). Do I feel leeched? No, cause it's the way I engage with my hobby and it brings me joy.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jan 17, 2019 20:11:41 GMT
I'm a massive fan of the 2d6 system combined with the available boosts (especially charges). It means there is a good distribution of statistical probability, but boosting means you can expend resources to throw the odds in a limited manner. Makes for a lovely tactical system compared to 'throw more dice' things. I dislike themes. Not as a concept; done properly they could be great for the game. But in actual execution they are abysmal; they effectively reward you bringing a hundred knives by giving you more knives, which promotes spam lists but doesn't actually improve your army much. Forgot to add: also dislike huge bases. I don't think they've been a positive addition the the game, and have often been the source of the biggest imbalances in the game since their inception.
|
|