The only problem is, GW vastly unerestimates how competative the US 40k market is.

Never mind the fact that idiots will play 3000 point games on a 4X6 table..

Apocalypse is, at its core, the drive behind a “bulk discount” marketing scheme in the new army box sets.

Well, I have only played 40k once in my life, and hated it. But Apocalypse appeals to me greatly. Its taking a lot of willpower to resist.
I’m sure in the end, I won’t.

I am really intrigued by the idea of Apocalypse - it seems to be a real divergence from GW’s typical offering and has piqued my interest. While I do appreciate the apparent marketing behind it, that doesn’t really concern me. They’re releasing a new rule set that will promote miniature sales - sounds like good marketing.

I think that the quality of the rules will be the determining factor. If they are truly fun and add the to experience, then most likely I’ll be willing to give them a go.

AJC

The points system in WM/HRD works, I never faced an “Uberlist” to which I couldn’t build a counter “Uberlist” if I wanted to. Six years playing 40K, however, taught me how broken the system is. Nothing is funnier to me than watching 40K and WHF players accusing each other of being “cheesy”, that vague adjective no one can really explain…

I think that points systems do have their merits and flaws, but fundamentally so does any form of measured force/character creation within our hobby. To imply that it is only GW systems that are exploited in this way is ridiculous. It’s not really points systems that are at fault, it’s the collective of people that we know as power gamers that make the flaws so apparent.

I know a guy who I’ve played 40k with and role-played with for years, a really nice guy, but as soon as you put him near a rules system, he breaks it. To some people, the prospect of not being the best at things is unbearable. Put this down to low self esteem or some other psychological issue, but even something as trivial as a game of toy soldiers suddenly becomes a test of their character and sense of being, not the harmless fun it’s meant to be.

Apocalypse has been designed with those of us that don’t suffer said issues in mind. It’s to give people who have been playing 40k since at least 2nd edition to just cut loose from the normal restrictions and have fun. Like any game, it’s what you make of it. As Jervis said in his standard bearer article, you will get those power gamers, but they’ll quickly find themselves ousted and without a game.

Lastly. i share most of peoples view on the tournament scene. you get some really nice people playing in them but sadly, there are too many that seek nothing but victory at all costs to warrant it being a definite laugh.

Gotta say I agree with Electric Voodoo Magic - part of what makes something like 40k nice is I can go to different shops, find a play and have at it - much harder with a game system without points

[quote comment="11583"]Gotta say I agree with Electric Voodoo Magic - part of what makes something like 40k nice is I can go to different shops, find a play and have at it - much harder with a game system without points[/quote]

Those two things aren’t related. 40K and WFB are not popular because they have point systems.

I agree that its nice to be able to go somewhere and be able to find players but don’t confuse the popularity of the games with the fact that they have point systems.

If GW had done some other scheme to create armies then the games would have been just as popular because they were about the only game to play for the longest time and were available worldwide.

In fact GW used a system for the Space Marine game that was effectively without points. The cards did have points but they could have been removed since they were often not needed. You could shuffle the cards together and deal out armies and I saw people do that when playing the game.

I’m really tempted with Apocalypse… hopefully will bring better games to the 40K universe.

I do have fun playing 40K, but it has been since I started picking my opponents :P

Andres

I find Games Workshop games in general are no longer fun to play which is why I stopped playing them! Even gaming with my friends there’s always the temptation to ‘power game’ your armies and just generally be obnoxious. There almost seems to be something inherent in the GW rule sets that encourages it and 40k in particular is the worst offender imho. WHFB has it’s problems too, but not to the same level in my experience. I peg it to the noticeable ‘newest army is best’ problem that GW games have had for around a decade now.

Zac mentioned Flames of War is also open to abuse, but as I have played both systems I have to say I disagree (no offence)! I find it considerably easier to build and play a balanced, sensible army in Flames of War and do fairly well. The Battlefront people actually seem to spend some time considering the balance of the armies in their system and of course are constrained in some sense by the historical setting. Certainly there are ‘killer’ armies, but a balanced army can generally stand their ground against these in FOW, and certain scenarios can reduce the effectiveness of such armies.

In fact, my FOW gaming replaced by GW gaming because I found the complexity of rules, length of games and hobby time involved similar, but FOW generally results in a much more enjoyable game and I’ve never found myself in one of those depressing ‘I know I’ve lost but I’m going through the motions’ games that seem so common to 40k.

Re 40k Apocalypse, if it represents a return to the original ‘Rogue Trader’ days of Vortex Grenades and ridiculously OTT powers then I’ll happily avoid it entirely and leave it for the kids.

While I definitely agree there are major problems with wargaming in general, tournament play, tournament players, points values, and specifically WH40K, I dont think the points values are the problem, merely a symptom of it.

Warhammer 40k is a terrible game. It is compounded by an abundance of poor sports and a ridiculous tournament atmosphere. The points values are surely a problem, but not the only one. I think that points can be very useful in creating balanced forces for a game. And that is a necessity when creating a game to market. While I applaud your ability to play games without points or balanced forces and still have fun, many players, and therefor customers, cannot.

I have played all different ways in my years of gaming. I have played in dog-eat-dog tournaments, friendly pick-up games at the local store, competitive games with my friends, and just-for-fun games where balance was not an issue. I enjoy all of these. But the truth is that most players only like to play in a few of these different types of games. And a company should work towards a ruleset that recognizes that and works well in any type of game. It is important for a game to have a balancing system because of the ever popular tournament, and more so because most gamers get there games in at clubs and stores, often with strangers or people who they only see in that environment.

Yes, you can get a game of 40k almost anywhere because of its popularity. No, it isnt popular because of its points system. But the points system gives the players the illusion of balance. This allows even the most competitive gamer you come across to feel comfortable playing a stranger in a pick up game, because he/she feels that they have a fair chance. If everyone played by their own house rules, pick up games would never happen, as both players would have to spend hours before the game deciding what rules they would play by and then feel frustrated as they tried to remember them during the game.

The real problem with most games, and 40k in particular is the lack of balance inherent in the system itself. Any system of balance could be used to allow for pick up games and tournaments; be they points, organization charts, cards, or slips of paper in a hat; if the game and its armies themselves are balanced.

The points system in 40k is abysmal truly. They admit there is no formula to even begin to give it legitimacy. But the real problem is what you can spend your points on. You can take the FoW machine gun min-maxing as an example as well. But lets look at one simple, often debated case in 40k. An IG player can field 3 Basilisks because he/she has 3 Heavy Support slots. But should he/she choose to do so, the comp score would suffer in a tournament, and they would hear cries of cheese in a club. Are the Basilisks fairly priced points-wise? Maybe as individuals. Even if GW had a perfect value placed on a Basilisk, 3 in an army would still be considered by most to be cheesy. The problem is that 3 are allowed. If 3 Basilisks make for an unbalanced game no matter the points cost, then dont let a player use three. It would be a simple matter of leaving 3 Heavy slots, but making the Basilisk choice a 0-1 or 0-2 option. The same goes for machine guns in FoW. If the price for a single gun is fair, but too many gets out of hand. Limit the number allowed. And in a historical setting this is even easier to legitimize by history.

The other option would be to make a scaled points value. I hear complaints about the cheesiness of a single unit much less than complaints of a good one being taken far too often and weak ones abandoned. In this case the points might increase as more of the same unit is taken. Thus if a unit is more and more unbalancing the more it appears in one force, it would cost a number of points to reflect that increased value. Thats what points are supposed to do anyway; show what the unit is worth compared to others. So with the Basilisk example lets say one Basilisk is worth 100 points. But 3 could take on a 450 point force fairly. Simply make the first Basilisk cost 100 points, the second 150, and the third 200 points. The same goes for mystic space elf lasers, German machine guns, and flying cats.

Of course, ideally, the units would be written in a way that a game would be balanced with one Basilisk or 20, as long as the points add up to an equal number to your opponent’s. But GW games, and most others have long burnt that bridge. Changes can be introduced however to help bring balance back, and 5,000 points of tanks does not have to be the answer.

The power gamers arent the problem. The fact that points are used are not the problem (if they are well calculated). Tournaments are not the problem. The problem is that the games arent inherently balanced to begin with. If the games were balanced the tournaments could be played without comp scores and power-gamers would have a lot more time to paint once they realize they cant break the system.

It would be nice to know that you can go to your local store, meet someone new, play a game where the rules are understood before the game, and know that both sides have a fair chance because their forces are well matched by a well made system. Heres looking forward to that day.

Edit - wow that was long. feel free to skip this one in your reading. ^_^

I don’t know me, I think I’m seeing a lot of points missed here.
Several posts above mention ‘balanced’ and ‘cheesy’ in the same sentence. Well to me ‘balanced’ implies a some kind of statistical equalization, whereas ‘cheesy’ is just another word for “I don’t like it!”. My point here is they don’t go together, as it a scenario may be balanced, but somebody will still call it ‘cheesy’.
Unit Point Costs are not exact. Well, duh. Like mentioned above, GW admits units are assigned point costs by “feel” and there is no concrete statistical equation. And some will yell “Why not?” OK, what is the penetration factor of a bolter against the side hull of a Tau Hammerhead? Heck, they still argue the penetration of a PAK40 against a Sherman, and unless I’ve missed something that really hasn’t changed much in what, 50 years?! So how do we fix this guys? Assign arbitrary numbers and not change them, ever? Yeah, that’ll go over well.

Army of the week syndrome. “The army of the latest codex is unbeatable.” Do I really need to deal with this one? That would mean that no one would ever be playing Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Orks, etc. And what, write the codex once and never change it again, ever? um, yeah, right, next.

Anybody getting the drift of where I’m going with this?

“I don’t want to have to buy a 3000 point army.” I really don’t know what to say about this absurdity. I’ll give it a try, and I’ll keep it simple enough to understand.
Don’t!

“No one wants to play with 3000 point armies.” Who have you been talking to? I’m looking forward to exercising the other half of my army.

GW interested in selling miniatures? Interested in selling books. No ship Sherlock. GW is a company. They are in the business of selling, um, what was it again? Oh, yeah, that’s right, miniatures! (geez)
What Battlefront is a non-profit charity now? Don’t think so.

Does this mean GW is the greatest thing since sliced cheese? Fork no.
They pass me off all the time. WHFB, rank bonus size changing from 5 to 6. Which changes unit size, ergo the number of models you need. It’s that kind of chit that gets me. Is it legal? Yes? Then STFU. Will it change? Most likely. Let GW know what you think is wrong. They do listen, at least a bit. The Defiler lost it’s indirect fire in the new Chaos codex because alot of people said it was unbalanced.
Am I contradicting myself? Nope. Cheese and balance are both relative (second cousins once removed) They will both change as time goes on.

So always remember what my old gran’pap used to say…
“One man’s cheese is another man’s sandwich topping.”
“And balance? Heh, in a fight between a 50 point elephant and 50 one point mice, who’s gonna win?”
“Go get a rag boy, and make sure you wipe between that elephant’s toes”

Subby - I like what you’re saying (even if it was a rant - I imagined you pacing up and down the room waving your hands in the air as you said it).

:-D

Gaming is as fun as you make it, whatever game you’re playing the rules and PVs etc. are all guidelines to play within. Yes they can be bent out of shape but some people do that in all things in life to try to get the ‘edge’.

I actually don’t mind playing against ‘uber’ army lists or ‘cheese’. It’s just another opponent that gives me even more things to think about on a tactical level.

And as for ‘having to have a 3000+pt army’ - GW does promote that bigger is better, it’s good for them to do so and the sheer spectacle of a game that big is great to see. But you don’t have to play games like that. Personally I prefer the small games of 1000-1500pts on a 4′x4′ table - they’re quicker and easier to build armies for.

I also like playing 40k in 40mins (or the WFB and LOTR equivalents) for the same reasons.

I prefer using balanced forces (wide troop options) myself so that I can take on whatever I come up against - I win some and lose some but, most importantly, I have fun trying to win every time.

[quote comment="11667"][quote comment="11662"]I prefer using balanced forces (wide troop options) myself so that I can take on whatever I come up against[/quote]

I think that most gamers would be surprised at their ability to gauge balanced forces in game without recourse to point costs.

Give it a try the next time your playing WFB or 40K. The characters may complicate things but I think that you’ll be ablet o “eyeball” two armies and get a good idea if they are balanced or not[/quote]

You could always start with points costs and then add a squad or two if you knew something was a little beardy, or one opponent was more experienced than the other.

Good points

There are indeed transparent costs associated with the detachments in AE-WWII. The game does lack a system by which you can customize the troops with the outlay of additional points.

There are customization options but again they have all been “priced” at the same level and so in the end the cost of any army is the same.

I can definitely see that people will still argue in the manner you described.

So there is then a differentiation between points and the level of options that games like 40K and WFB give you using points.

Does this added complexity really make the game more fun? Are the additional options in terms of army building worth the price? And can a game be fun and not have those options?

I think it can and I think that if developers focus more on creating fun games they might find that they can create systems that allow gamers to have fun without so many point driven options.

I know that for me half the fun of 40K was creating new army lists and playing with the options and part of the problem with WFB is that there are so many options that it is difficult to find what are good and what are bad options.

This has always troubled me about WFB, and to a lesser degree 40K. There are options that are given to gamers that are not worth buying. And some combos of options that make the other less attractive.

So why include them. Why not provide a smaller set of better balanced and more characterful options instead?

[quote comment="11757"]
[quote comment="11592"]I will admit that I am not a very competitive gamer.[/quote]

I totally disagree. I’ve personally seen you go for the jugular in a most gruesome fashion. ;)[/quote]

I have indeed pummelled the heck out of some people playing Hordes and Warmachine but the games I always tend to remember are the ones that are close and competitive. I’m using “competitive” in the sense of active tournament play and focus on developing competitive game winning army lists.

I’ve got rid of my FoW models specifically because I thought that the game lead to people needlessly focused on creating the most efficient and effective use of their allotted points. I lost a *lot* of FoW games specifically because my armies had tanks I liked as opposed to tanks that were more point effective.

I also lose a lot of Warmachine games because I don’t like the Iron Fang Pikemen of the Man O War Shocktroopers which are very good units for their point cost.

One does wonder why if the GW fan base can run the numbers on a new codex or army book in a week why GW can’t do the same thing to remove pointless options in their army list.

Number crunching can be fun on its own. And useful. When we were working on the Epic:Armageddon book one of the testers would typically provide statistical analysis of weapon systems or army point costs to help clarify decisions we were making

[quote comment="11771"]I’d like to ask the editor to implement this “losing lots of Warmachine games” policy a little more thoroughly when I play against him.[/quote]

Didn’t you win that game with the Troll Champions that I was unable to kill?