Arquinsiel wrote:I can post screenshots if people really want.
Yes please, I'm intrigued
Moderator: The Dread Knights
Arquinsiel wrote:I can post screenshots if people really want.
Cultofkhaine wrote:It's hard to come up with an original idea though GW have captured all the good ideas.
The Mattler wrote:If it's a deal-breaker for you, stop playing GW games, since dice rolling a player off the table is the central feature of their game mechanics. It may or may not play as central a role in tabletop games from other companies, but it's ubiquitous in GW products.
I hope you really really wanted it, because it's not really all that interesting. Names edited to protect identities etc etc.Red... wrote:Arquinsiel wrote:I can post screenshots if people really want.
Yes please, I'm intrigued
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.
I hope you really really wanted it, because it's not really all that interesting. Names edited to protect identities etc etc.
"Stop playing it"... it's weird how often that comes when someone complains about something that is screwed up in games. When someone invests a lot in a hobby/game, they want to have fun and get something out of it. When GW then comes around with a set of rules that is utterly crap and ruins the experience, you can't expect the veteran players to just accept it and move along, or just pack everything down and leave without a word.
The sad thing is, a decent portion of my friends these days are ex GW staffers too. The guy I was in to meet up with, who had just ended things with his cheating fiancé, was also an ex staffer. These were known facts, and the manager still decided to be a dick.Red... wrote:Thanks for sharing. I guess that's why many older players have been refusing to go into their stores for years now. It's a real shame, because I remember GW stores being a wonderful place to go when I was aged 8-12 (back in those heedy days of the very early 1990s). The staff were friendly and passionate. In recent years, it changed for the worse - and your experience sounds depressingly about what you would expect. It's a shame really.
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.
flatworldsedge wrote:1 - I like points
2 - I like characters
3 - I have negative goodwill to GW
4 - I won't be associated with incompetence
5 - Who cares if WFB is unsupported
Barking Agatha wrote:flatworldsedge wrote:1 - I like points
2 - I like characters
5 - Who cares if WFB is unsupported
Even though I'm pro-AoS, I can't really argue with any of that. It's the best reasoned anti argument I've seen yet (maybe the only reasoned one).
flatworldsedge wrote:Points are part of the reason I played the game, because they were fun even when I wasn't playing the game. Points are fun on a long train journey.
flatworldsedge wrote:RE#2 - The "backstory" I think is worthy of further comment, as it's been a real issue for me over the last year since ET kicked off! Creating one's own backstory functions best when the game world is a broadly stable canvas into which you weave your own character/army/lore, etc.
flatworldsedge wrote:RE#4 - I take the point about their survival, yet from their early '90's heyday I'd still say that's an incompetent result. With their momentum and custom base at the time, I think it's incompetent to be where there are today. A competent organisation would have made better use of the rise in ecommerce to drive down cost, forums/social networks to drive loyalty and spend, the rise in mainstream online gaming to leverage their (previously significant) WFB IP assets, etc., etc. I feel they missed too many tricks - exploited by new entrants - and can see why they did in their statements about what kind of a company they are, rather than recognising the assets they in fact held. Why isn't WOW instead WOFB, why are we chatting here at druchii.net rather than gw.com/druchii, why are people watching GOT instead of ET on TV? I guess that's the main sub-point I'd make here. Survival is a poor result for them.
flatworldsedge wrote:I'm Buddhist enough to say farewell to those preferring AOS, and to support their right to free speech, but I'm not interested - no insult - in playing with them or arguing the toss.
Flam1ng0 wrote:...
Glad to see I'm not the only person who does this!!
http://ftgtgaming.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/a-treatise-on-gaming-points-values-you.html
But in tying in with the whole points argument, the article this link leads to features an old article by Jervis Johnson himself where he pretty much denounces the place of points values in gaming. In hindsight it is foreshadowing stuff, and suggests that he had a major role in the transition from WFB to AoS. He also manages to come off as smug and completely out of touch with the people who play the game he was majorly involved with.
Johnson's mentality accompanied with sightings of AoS terrain as far back as two years ago (Triumph and Treachery) suggests that either:
A) GW were merely holding some of this stuff back for a later release. This is highly likely, as this has happened on a few occasions, for example the plastic Daemon Prince- who knows what MPP wonders lie yet to be released in the depths of GW's warehouses?
B) AoS was in the works for a considerably longer time period than first thought, which not only makes the system's poor design and many holes even more pathetic and insulting from a consumer standpoint, but also ties in with flatworldsedge third point, that it is completely disgusting from GW to gouge customers of their money for products of a system that they had no intentions of continuing, even up to a few months ago. It shows a complete disrespect and lack of communication with their customer base, and the arrogance and pride displayed in their annual report only confirmed this.
It's this attitude displayed in their evaluation of their customers that makes option B) even completely feasible, unfortunately.
Flam1ng0 wrote:He also manages to come off as smug and completely out of touch with the people who play the game he was majorly involved with.
Johnson's mentality...
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.
Barking Agatha wrote:Flam1ng0 wrote:He also manages to come off as smug and completely out of touch with the people who play the game he was majorly involved with.
Johnson's mentality...
I take it you've never met Jervis, or you wouldn't say such things about him. He is a lovely, lovely man who will always be friendly and open toward you and never cop an attitude or pull the 'I've been a game designer at GW for almost 40 years with a few classic credits to my name, so maybe I know a thing or two' card. Disagree with him all you like, but to disparage him... it's downright mean.
EDIT: That article appears to be from the Citadel Journal, which ceased publication in 2002, so unless you believe that AoS has been in the works for 13 years I wouldn't call it 'foreshadowing'.
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.
flatworldsedge wrote:In fact, it was their use of the word "otiose" in that annual report quote (see above) where they boasted of doing no research. It was so smug, so pompous, so showboatingly arrogant and so wrong.
Gidean wrote:+1 I've met Jervis when he visited here in the States and I agree with Barking Ag. A very polite and humble man. But I don't think he ever approached the game from a 'competitive' standpoint.
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.