![Perfect Historical Wargame Objectives! Victrix Treasures & More Reviewed [7 Days Early Access]](https://images.beastsofwar.com/2026/02/unboxing-victrix-treasures_-chests-_-market-stalls-coverimage-225-127.jpg)
Weekender XLBS: When Should Companies Maintain Rulesets?
October 6, 2019 by crew
For some website features, you will need a FREE account and for some others, you will need to join the Cult of Games.
Or if you have already joined the Cult of Games Log in now
What difference will having a FREE account make?
Setting up a Free account with OnTableTop unlocks a load of additional features and content (see below). You can then get involved with our Tabletop Gaming community, we are very helpful and keen to hear what you have to say. So Join Us Now!
Free Account Includes
- Creating your own project blogs.
- Rating and reviewing games using our innovative system.
- Commenting and ability to upvote.
- Posting in the forums.
- Unlocking of Achivments and collectin hobby xp
- Ability to add places like clubs and stores to our gaming database.
- Follow games, recommend games, use wishlist and mark what games you own.
- You will be able to add friends to your account.
What's the Cult of Games?
Once you have made a free account you can support the community by joing the Cult of Games. Joining the Cult allows you to use even more parts of the site and access to extra content. Check out some of the extra features below.
Cult of Games Membership Includes
- Reduced ads, for a better browsing experience (feature can be turned on or off in your profile).
- Access to The Cult of Games XLBS Sunday Show.
- Extra hobby videos about painting, terrain building etc.
- Exclusive interviews with the best game designers etc.
- Behind the scenes studio VLogs.
- Access to our live stream archives.
- Early access to our event tickets.
- Access to the CoG Greenroom.
- Access to the CoG Chamber of Commerce.
- Access the CoG Bazarr Trading Forum.
- Create and Edit Records for Games, Companies and Professionals.
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Happy Sunday Brothers and Sisters of CoG!
========== It’s the XLBS Show ==========
Turn up the volume, put your feet up, and enjoy some hobby goodness!
If the recent ‘Pointless Views’ is a precursor to this show, then hold on tight!
For the record, I agree with Gerry. Companies need to get the rules right before they offer up a game for sale. Enough of this beta testing at the expense of the players.
Question of the day….How often would you want updates to your rulesets?
My personal opinion is that rules, (for large complex games) should be solid enough to live at least two years minimum with only a half to full page errata here and there. If it’s a sports game of some type then a new rules book every year is ok, (aka Guild Ball style) But here me, if you don’t publish your rules in a proper paper form then I just can’t take your game seriously at all. Now if you’re not charging any money at all for your game then you can publish to .pdf all you want. To me, releasing rules in an only .pdf form screams ‘Here today, gone tomorrow’. It strikes me the same as companies that don’t have a proper website and try to get away with only having a Facebook page. If you want my money you gotta step up and be professional.
To boil it down…..If rules change too often it becomes like a ‘JOB’ to keep up with changes…I play games to relax. I don’t need another JOB!
IMHO
How about a MAJOR update/edition change every 5 years?
Happy Sunday!!!
I think this comes back to the discussion the other day in that if companies playtested the rules then maybe a new rule book every 5 odd years to include any little bits of errata that crop up would be more than sufficient
This
How would you see the playtesting being done?
Something that solid a ruleset, in this day and age, with the size of the audience there is now for tabletop games, compared to say the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s….
I think that the cost of that ruleset would cause people an issue, especially if the playtesters had to be paid. Depending upon the number of factions and options of course.
Play testing is usually done by the people writing the rules then asking people at a club to try them and then expanding that out to people who want to playtest them. All that should only take 6 months to a year to be and yo get a pretty tight ruleset together
To be honest I’ve never heard of playtesters being paid
Could be one of the reasons why some rulesets aren’t so good.
I spent 30 years in software development…
One “law” that I hold on to from those days…
Someone that designs a system to be completely foolproof underestimates the ingenuity of complete fools.
The bigger the audience, the better the testing, of anything, needs to be.
When I started out I was writing code for individual consumers. I’d get them to test it, after teaching them the principals of testing. They of course would be under time pressure from the rest of their job and would do the best they could.
These days big corporations pay specialist testing teams good money to devise test plans and carry them out on software, before it is released to the public…. Or even a small subset that does public beta testing.
Back when I played 40K more regularly, GW seemed to fix a broken rule in one edition of the rulebook, but break another. It seemed to be a pattern to a point where I thought they were doing it on purpose, to never get to a point where the ruleset was perfected… To be in a continuous cycle of always having to print the next edition to fix the last one.
At least it keeps the games developers employed and a stream of revenue for the producers, supply chain, and shareholders.
“Someone that designs a system to be completely foolproof underestimates the ingenuity of complete fools”
Amen!!
some of the games from the 70s – 90s are better rulesets still than what we see today. I don’t think it’s the size of the audience that has changed that, but rather the feeling they have to add more mechanics and be cleverer and shinier than other rulesets to make them stand out. It leads to conflicts of rules within the system, incongruities creep in and bloat develops.
Some of the recent stand out systems of recent years for me are the ones that have cut rules back to the bear necessities to make it a playable and enjoyable game.
discuss.
😉
One of my favourite games is still Armati. Very simple game with fixed army lists apart from maybe being able to swap in and out the odd unit but the core of the army was always the same. Basic impetus does this now as well
One page rules does nicely as it’s very simple game at heart relying on the players to make the correct tactical choices in the game rather than endless spe ial characters with special rules, Squad hammer by Nordic Weasel games foes this very well I’ve bee told
I wonder if more games should go to set army lists instead of points and in the rules you would have an army list for small,medium and large games with some alternate units allowing to be swapped in for others but the core army would always be the same
But were any of them designed to support the weight of a larger corporation, like a GW, FFG, WoTC, etc?
Why does Apple design its phones to die after a year or two, when they could easily live a lot longer? To sell the customer a new one….
It really is about revenue streams to pay overheads, tax, wages, salaries and dividends.
Otherwise, gaming would still be the cottage industry it used to be – perhaps a bit of a generalisation – but not have the player base that the big corporations have helped build….
Without them, would OTT even exist?
The companies you mention I have no real experience with except with GW and that was many years ago. What little I know about the rest is that it seems that you have to keep buying to stay up to date with the rules etc. Its not part of my wargaming hobby that I have any interest of being part of
Any company that does not pay its playtesters is going to get exactly the kind of quality they paid for …
In 1 year your community has moved to the next new thing. They won’t notice the update you’ve got planned.
Rules updates and releases aren’t merely done to fix rules.
They also exist as a marketing tool to remind people that the company still exists …
Change things or produce things too quickly and people complain, eg Warcry product roll out.
Under produce or don’t respond to people’s expectations and get complaints of this game is not supported or is dead…
It can be a hard thing striking a happy medium…. One could end up in jail 😉
yep …
I don’t envy the small developers in the industry.
They’re damned if they do and they’r damned if they don’t
Happy Sunday!
I’ve no problem with companies keeping their system up-to-date and fit-for-purpose; it becomes an issue when they cynically do this as a major revenue stream. As an example, Steamforged have ruined Guildball for me as an occasional player with their annual seasons involving: New rulebook, retired models, new card packs and even tokens. the more teams you have the more it costs.
I agree – completely given up any interest in Guildball which is a shame. Similar ‘rebounder’ problem that Infinity has for me.
When Guild Ball dropped hard copy rules I lost heart in them. I have nine teams in my studio and my wife and I used to play a match at least once a week. It just felt like they gave up on being professional.
We have since decided to ignore any rules that aren’t in print proper (aka we’re sticking with the third rulebook).
I just won’t travel to any tournaments that use the unprinted rules that change with the blowing of the wind!
Also, I’ve not bought any new teams in over a year as a result of the rules melt-down.
I’d much prefer a Kepi to a Fez. Both are Civil War hats but both saw much wider use than just that. the Kepi was basically the Military hat after the Shako went out. Google “Zouaves” Warren you’ll love them.
@warzan ah my friend you’ve been caught out by stats. There are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Do you know the faster growing demographic getting STD’s and AIDS? The Elderly. (Made up numbers) Because 10 had it last year and 100 have it this year so there was a growth of 1000%. Compare that to 50 Million Young People having AIDS this year and 55 Million Next year. That’s only a growth of 10%. Yet the actual growth was 90 vs 5 Million.
The Growth of Vinyl records could just mean there is a small niche community of like 2000 people whereas last year it was 2.
GW have been accused of using updates to sell new minis. A lot of people accuse GW of not just codex creep but releasing a brand new shiny mini that is just amazing then in a month they nerf the crap out of it. The new Not-Dreadnought is one that I see a lot on Facebook.
Updates are fine but what happens when I forgot to download the latest copy and I go play at my friends house with no wifi (Wifi is VERY iffy here in Australia we have major black spots) and we both have different sets of rules? What happens if my phone/tablet doesn’t charge or I drop it and it’s broken how do I play my game now?
I love PDF’s, I love to use them on a PC to build lists but I prefer hard copies to actually play the game. Having a digital rulebook is fine but it’s not just a digital rulebook is it? It’s also your Facebook messages, your notifications, your emails and every other distraction that comes with a phone or tablet that drives me nuts. I have had so many opponents go to check a rule and spend 5 minutes texting someone.
All of that being said I’m a FLuffy gamer. I don’t really play games that have “list building” as a ‘Meta’. Sure you can build a list in Sharp Practice, Muskets and Tomahawks, Napoleon at War, Force on Force, SAGA and others. Sure every now and then I’ll play some Warhammer Fantasy or Star Wars Legion or 40K (wow is that game a train wreck go play Age of Plasma {now basically finished and ready to be polished} or better yet go play the best 40K 5th Edition) https://www.beastsofwar.com/project/1392293/
No one Min Maxes SAGA and breaks the game (Besides the Rus filth) by taking all Levies or all Hearthguard. I’m part of maybe 5 or 6 Sharp Practice Facebook pages and I’ve seen questions about everything from “Can anyone give me tips about using this unit” to “Hey can someone tell me what colour this button should be” but never have I seen anything close to “Here’s an Uber insta win Netlist” despite the game having points values for everything and the lists in the rulebook just being a guide. Compare that to 40K where almost every Facebook page is full of lists min-maxed to just stomp people or pictures of people’s new “Smash Captain’s” becasue that’s the new meta.
So I guess it depends on the game. If you’re TooFatLardies and your community plays the game the way you meant them to and almost works with you to keep it stable then updates can be very far apart.
On the other hand if you work for GW and the community almost fights against your developers to purposely unbalance your games then I like the idea of twice a year updates.
Some communities just don’t need updates, they don’t rock the boat, other companies need to shackle their communities down because the first thing they try to do with a new rulebook is start a fire that burns the whole boat down.
Hear, hear!
just wait and see ’till SAGA goes mainstream and a tournament scene happens. 😉
However it is true that some games/genres appear to be more immune/resistant to this abuse than others.
I suppose the nature of the company and the community has something to do with that.
The real trick is to maintain that state as the player base grows.
Happy Sunday!
Ice Dungeon Ideas:
* Need to take an item, gained from a previous adventure, to the ice caves to be frozen and only the breath from an ice dragon will do it. Maybe taking lava to cool, not into stone but crystallized.
* The quest for the best Slurpee machine
* The adventurers need scales and pelts from the denizens of the frozen north to make protective clothing to aid their next adventure, raiding treasure troves guarded by Viking Pirates!
* Trap Idea: A long wide hall, empty save the frozen remains of running, frightened and shocked people. The floor made up of irregular shaped flagstones, each one marked by a letter, number or glyph. Above, high in the rafters, a massed array of buckets. It’s the Ice Bucket Hall – of Doom!
* Enemies immune to all damage, except snowballs
* Making a snowman, with a twist. The snowmen, with the proper incantation become alive to act as mounts for a joust. The lances are constructed out of icicles of course. A mounted snowman cavalry joust, I’m sure there’s a model for that haha
Happy Sunday
Stick with XLBS
It’s the name it should be thus for ever more..?
I would give this more votes if I could
This. Please don’t change the name. It will be worse than when Marathon became Snickers or Opal Fruits became Starburst. Changing names ruins products – I had faith that Jif would clean up the stains… Cif, wouldn’t trust it!
@lloyd the elder statesmen have spoken 🙂
You calling me an elf? ?
Kill the boy, Snow.
Here here!
So what do you think the name means? @robert
Personally, I would prefer the acronym was COGS – something directly related to the brand we are building. For you it maybe it just a name? For me there’s a whole strategy and brand that needs to be looked after and sometimes that means some change.
XLBS worked great at a time, but now has become a bit more cryptic as to it’s meaning and not in a good way from my perspective.
Nothing we have every changed has been without reason and thought. Change for change sake isn’t good but so is the inability to change.
Happy to ‘talk brand’ on the OTT front of house stuff @lloyd as we are directly effected by outside influences like YouTube and google policies etc
But ‘personally speaking’ here – what happens within the inner circle here is not about ‘brand’ at all because we don’t have to worry just as much about the outside world – just be part of something with the community…
At least that’s how I feel 🙂
#evenbrothersdisagreesometimes
“just be part of something with the community” – this is the point. Cult of Games has evolved into a community in it’s own right, it’s not just an extension of OTT, it’s not just extra content.
I’m lost….
Between BoW, OTT and CoGs…..
Am I one, two or all three? … I used to be a Backstager and knew where I was.
Reminds me of one of the bits at the start of “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”… Judean Peoples’ Front…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
Oh, by the way, happy 50th Monty Python.
@hobbyhub I thought you where the splitter?
Feel free to work whatever “branding” massaging or chicanery that makes you feel better at night, but the word “Cult” will come back to bite you on the ass one day. Bored fundamentalists will eventually sharpen their pitchforks and use you as the boogeyman in their ongoing campaigns to “protect the moral fiber of society” or whatever justification they use to bring the media spotlight onto themselves.
It’s better to leave it as a jokey light-hearted nickname like we have been treating it recently.
Xtra Long Bull Shit – It is Ronseal, does exactly what it says on the tin.
@robert 😉
I wholeheartedly agree.
So what should it mean?
Xtra Large Brother Sauce of course @lloyd
They all wants it 😉
or…
Xtra Long Brother Sausage 😉
I didn’t know you were all related…
Exactly, it has no clear meaning, so it’s difficult to communicate what it is to new people.
That’s easy to fix @lloyd, you get to choose if its sauce or sausage 😉
shit
Personally I prefer Backstagers as that is something we can understand. We are getting backstage access to what is going on and that includes having little chats like this one. As to the COG, it isn’t a bad idea especially with all the other rebranding that have come about. @avernos did a great job discussing this on Little Wars TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9v5rQCvzdw
If we are going to change maybe we can all be OTTers and @warzan can stay a bear.
Happy Sunday fellow CoG Members
Happy Sunday!
Simply call the show “Hobby Lodge” works on all levels!
(Royalties to @laughingboy who actually has a hobby lodge ? )
The idea that rules should be perfect at release is exactly that … an idea(l) and an illusion at best.
(1) No amount of playtesting is going to prepare your rules for a community filled with rules lawyers and min/maxers.
(2) No amount of testing is going to make the rules resistant to changes if the core design principles didn’t account for that.
It’s one of the things I noticed when Infinity rules were updated. Every aspect got revisited with the intent of creating a solid foundation for updates.
I think this is the problem of the GW’s in the industry.
The core rules are rock solid at release, but they degrade the moment new units/skills are introduced especially ones that break the original faction-concept (stealth units for spacemarines … ) and nothing is done to fix this until the other factions get their new goodies.
The danger of playtesting is that you are testing with people that are familliar with the game and company ideals.
They either learn or assume that ‘unit X is meant to be used for tactic Y’. And as a result they’ll never discover that it is too strong when used against a different unit or too weak other circumstances.
And even if they discover that … it might be intent and they fail to communicate that aspect.
Are thieves supposed to be able to defeat fighters in open combat ?
Do soldiers on open ground get a fair chance against a sniper hiding in his nest ?
To some the answers are obvious (Nope, and What the heck are you doing ?).
To others this is not and depending on the audience this can result in acceptance (like do’h! … snipers were designed for this) or complaints (no fair *cries*).
Depending on the setting some of these aspects may not be obvious.
Historical games have an advantage, because the expected use case for units is usually known or it can be explained as a scenario specific feature.
Fictional settings need to explain the supposed balance and playtest the heck out of it, because there may be too few or too little alternatives for opponents.
And then there’s the most tricky aspect of play testing : terrain/table layout
Fight with lots of cover and you’re going to ‘forget’ about what happens when there’s none.
Net result is a rules set optimized for the playtest scenarios.
This need not be bad *if* (and only if) the rulebook explains it (*) and the associated community accepts it.
Games with a competitive aspect are going to need regular updates.
Ideally at the end of a new season rules and/or stats get updated, lists get adjusted and (worst case scenario) units get restricted.
Games that without the competitive aspect need this aspect to be clearly explained.
I like what Warlord/Bolt-action is doing with this by defining ‘armies of x’ as their ‘competitive’ version and the rest as the narrative variant.
They may need updates, but these can be more relaxed as the community is capable of making judgement calls themselves.
(*) this is why rulebooks need either a hefty chapter on table layout or scenarios that show terrain. It’s why Killteam and WarCry are so much better than 40k rulebook itself (IMHO).
Happy Sunday!
Not always their biggest fan, but can’t help but feel that GW have taken an unnecessary kicking for their rules here. Have they had issues in the past? Oh gods yes. I still remember the gap between the 3rd & 5th edition Space Wolf Codices. But since Age of Sigmar and 40k 8th edition they’ve shown a remarkable commitment – across their entire ranges – to getting an initial errata out for any new product within the first month, FAQ’s in the Spring & Autumn, and then a more encompassing errata once a year that includes any points rebalancing. I’ve found that quite commendable.
Really though I think the key thing is for a publisher to be clear about their roadmap for supporting their system, and putting out updates so that the customer knows what they are getting in to. As you guys point out, not everyone wants (or has the time) to follow a system that’s updated too rapidly, and equally leaving a system to live or die with no official support can appeal to some whilst being open to abuse by others.
Yes I agree – 40k 8th has the ability to make balance adjustments designed into the core of GWs plan. And the great thing is that if you list build in BattleScribe you don’t have to buy, or refer to, anything else! Just hit ‘update data’ and print for your game. GW have been a bit slow getting their own force builder out there, they’ve really missed a trick there.
I dream of a world where every game has an app for list building! Developers can tweak the points of units to balance the game periodically as feedback comes in from the community and trends are observed in tournament settings.
New rules editions don’t need to be too frequent if the game is solid to begin with and unit costs can be re balanced.
Great discussion this morning and I think an important one. Not so much that consensus can be gained on the specifics but more that game developers need to consider this when designing the game from the ground up. I think the frequency and mechanism for balance updates is going to vary game to game, but if you don’t plan it in then it leads to trouble.
I actually disagree that keeping the points the same is the way to go. I think that points are exactly the thing that should be changed. I’ll explain why. There is one thing that grinds my gears more than digital technology interfering with my games and that is the invalidation of physical game assets. If stats or points or rules are printed on cards and components then the moment you change any of those things, that component becomes invalid and the game immediately becomes less accessible. It is much more simple to leave the points off of the components and then use that as your balance mechanism. I have no problem using an app at the army building stage (in fact I actually enjoy this aspect) but I don’t want to have to use one whilst gaming, and games that require very little rule book referral run much more smoothly, therefore having stats and rules on cards is great in my mind. It’s the points that need to come off.
An example of a game that is going to run into a problem is Star Wars Legion. It is a beautifully designed game, fairly well balanced through its initially planned releases (in the grand scheme of things), and all the stats and special rules are on the cards which makes the game play so smoothly. However, the points are also on the cards. Now, whatever FFG do to balance the game (and it’s going to need it as the game grows) is going to invalidate those cards and immediately make the game less accessible, undermining the very elegance of its design.
Contrast this with another FFG game – X-Wing. First edition had exactly the same issue. With a fast release schedule, power creep was huge, and with a thriving tournament scene metas formed really quickly. The game became a horrible shadow of its initially elegant design. Every attempt to balance would invalidate components and the FAQ was longer than the rule book. The rebirth into second edition has moved list building into an app so that the game can run smoothly with physical components alone. Yes they still have a fast release schedule and fast settling of meta, but FFG have committed to regular (2 or 3 times a year) points updates which are published prior to release. This really is a win win. Players can be confident that OP stuff won’t last long, and FFG can control product sales by making what needs to sell (temporarily) cheaper in points.
So my strong opinion for my ideal game is: Design regular balancing into the core of the game (regular can be whatever it needs to be to make informed decisions on enough data), build a force building app from day one, get rules onto cards where possible but leave points off, and then just be very transparent about what the update schedule is and stick to it. And never, ever, invalidate physical components unless it is absolutely necessary. And if you really really have to do that then publish replacement components or stickers or something to make sure the game still plays as designed without constant referrals to rules references.
I totally agree with what you are saying here. Put stats on cards for gaming reference, leave the points off and have a separate document for constructing army lists. Be that digital, physical or ideally both.
This way you don’t have to overhaul the game to create balance, just tweak the army list document.
Sounds good to me.
Also, i would prefer a unit to be designed to do what it is meant to do, both in game terms and fictional (fluff) terms, and for that unit’s effectiveness and use to stay the same than for that to change in order to keep the unit’s points value the same.
In order to address the issue of not having enough miniatures to make up the points some other in game bonus can be created, such as when and where some of an army’s units set up, or how pieces of terrain a player gets to place.
Ice Dungeon – the first thing that came to mind was one of the 1980s Superman movies… can’t remember which one but it has a big ice cave thing!
Also, if you want to up the budget, explain to the wife how the terrain can double as Christmas decorations, and how you plan on playing a game on Christmas Eve were the kids have to save Santa and his elves, and hence Christmas.
You are an evil genius @robert – a beautiful man, but an evil genius…
I’m blushing, not often I get called evil!
I never noticed in the paintings I’ve seen that stable in Bethlehem had an eye of the beholder hiding in the corner
It was just about all of them @robert, along with recent movies and TV shows. it’s called “The Fortress of Solitude” and is Superman’s secret base in the Artic Circle.
I think I will steal that name and call my hobby shed “The Fortress of Solitude” cause in winter it is bloody freezing!
And a couple of weeks later you can save the wisemen as they finish their quest.
This was far less visceral than the Pointless Views segment. Maybe the Fez’s blocked out the gamma rays.
Tieing in the Pointless Views episode as well I would like to pose a couple of questions some of which you covered. The questions would be:-
1. If a core rule is broken how long is acceptable for them to fix it?
2. If a faction element (unit/spell/skill etc) is broken how long is acceptable for them to fix it?
3. Should broken components or core rules be fixed outside of large rules updates and rebalances regardless of the severity?
4. At what regularity should a company look to update rules and factions?
5. Should the timeline of updates and rebalance be a sliding scale based on the number of factions within a game system?
There are more but don’t want to overload the response.
It amazes me how poor some people are with the written word who then become experts at finding the grey areas within rules to serve their purposes in games. A lot of the times fully understanding that what they have interpreted is against the spirit of what it was meant to be.
There is definitely a difference between rulesets without miniature ranges and rulesets with them. Companies who also want revenue from miniature sales need to add and expand their ranges and have to then balance the releases but they do need to have game spikes in factions to keep them interesting. Also even when trying to future proof for later releases some core rules will need to be designed and brought in to allow expansion into new factions and areas of gaming, this is far more likely with growing miniature ranges.
Historic and fantastic, these two are also very different from a design standpoint. If I was to say Philip of Macedon and a 20 strong bodyguard on horseback are your force you have a good solid start point of reference and maybe even personal knowledge to start to design your rules and a concept of what they look like and should play like. If not you can hit the books (rulebook style) or google them (PDF style). Essentially your not designing from scratch and are less likely to make rules or stat errors during the design process.
If I was to say the opposing force is 5 Illithid led by a Mindwitness, Grabel, and I am the first person to have come up with this concept then I will be designing rules from nothing that need to fit in with the concepts for the creatures and their backgrounds which have no real-world references. This would be much more likely to have errors of balance or flaws in the rules.
For a company doing its first product pretty much all the playtesting is done by the company and a few friends or local club. Things are likely to be missed or those grey areas not noticed due to those people using them in the right way and not seeing the possibility of them being used in the wrong way. There are always external pressures as well to releasing a ruleset and whilst that is not an excuse financial pressures or established production timelines with outside agencies especially for those on a crowdfunding deadline may mean a less than polished release. How many years do you spend with this on hold hoping someone else doesn’t close that gap in the market with a similar product. Obsidian Protocol is a good example, myself Justin and John have discussed on and off about that exact game concept, those guys have been developing for a fair few years. What if the Gundam brand had beat them to it, with them being so popular they would likely have eaten up the customer base regardless of how good or bad the game was.
Even people who back such crowdfunding for companies that have asked for feedback and have designed paper standees for characters and PDF rules for games will be lucky to get much in the way of constructive feedback and this at a time when they may still be able to make changes prior to print and production.
Finally, there seem to be a lot of people who need to have a rulebook produced physically. I would love to get a Mindhunter take on this, as those same people would not want to go back to a phone that just has text messaging, phone calls and a battery that only needed to be charged every 240 hours. Is it something from when we younger or maybe a habit of a lifetime. PDF rulebooks are obviously easier for access, you can print physical copies of the rules and place them in a nice binder to have a physical copy, they can be accessed anywhere so it’s not as bad of you forgot them, there are a lot of reasons. Also, those who have rulebooks, do you write in the changes to the core rules, do you carry print offs of the errata/FAQ’s or do you reference them digitally?
Lots of interaction in the week so hopefully the guys get a good interaction out of this one too.
Happy Gaming everyone
Balls, I forgot to add something. We have had a lot of back and forth between digital and physical in recent times and where we/you think the streams should and should not be crossed. Super Fantasy Brawl is doing digital playtesting through the use of an online site for their game which is currently in production prior to release via a crowdfunding success. @warzan mentioned in the Pointless Views episode about why make the game if you can do it all digitally, this is an example where they have made a digital game because they want to make the physical one better prior to release. A reverse really of what was briefly touched on.
Actually my 10 year old phone broke this year and i was forced (partly due to ethical considerations, but mostly because of what’s available) to go for a pad phone. I’d have much preferred a phone like the one you describe. I simply don’t find the additional functions worth having.
Surprised you couldn’t find anything the same as your old one to buy online. I get older style ones for my mum off of Amazon.
I did look, but it turns out that when looking a little closer most of it is trash in a game of pass the parcel. I did find a brand new phone that was exactly the same make as the phone i’d had, and i did gamble and i bought it, only to find that it was blocked. Blocked, i learnt after some digging, is not the same as locked and means that the phone has been stolen in some way. A blocked phone is effectively locked but the only way to get it unblocked is to find the original owner, which, ridiculy, is nigh on impossible. I got some of my money back, but none of my time.
That’s a shame buddy. We have been quite lucky but I have only replaced hers twice.
Well i suppose i could have settled for something battered, but i do like to keep things in good condition and for them to start that way, and the options just weren’t there in the time i had.
I’d pretty sure you can buy new Nokia 3310s – they were marketing them at professionals who want to get away from their phones at weekends and on holidays.
I looked into getting one of those but it turns out they’re a bit of a gimmick and i decided against it after the blocked phone fiasco and because i had bought a pad phone with the idea of returning it for a refund if i found something else and i’d run out of time to do so and decided to stick with. It’s not bad it’s just not necessary for me.
Does anybody else think Gerry’s head works surprisingly well when photo-shopped onto other people?
I have to disagree with Gerry on GW – his information is a few years out of date. For both 40k and Age of Sigmar they release a yearly Chapter Approved or General’s Handbook which rebalances points and changes/adds core rules and scenarios to rebalance the game. These processes both involve internal and external play testing.
Keeping a units points the same seems good at first glance, but ultimately I think it has just the same amount of flaws. Imagine fielding your army and finding out your unit no longer has some equipment or a special rule you are used to using because they were stripped out rather than increasing their points cost.
You must be careful when quoting stats. A percentage increase or decrease is misleading without knowing the base value, and a numerical rise can be misleading without knowing the base value. Going from 2 instances of something to 4 can be quoted as a “100% increase” which sounds drastic, but actually the numbers are still negligible. Similarly “£1 million extra” sounds huge, until you realise the base expenditure is £1 billion.
I think Justin hasn’t realised that doing an update every quarter for several factions at a time is more work on the developers. Each rebalance has to take into account the effects from the last one. So then every rebalance cycle will be a mad rush and has to be based on only a very brief period of gaming. I personally think annual updates are the way to go.
@danlee @avernos totally agree that Gerry just has one of those faces. In fact, it has just the right amount of hair to be nice to press your face against but always seems to smell of whiskey in the wee hours of a Boot Camp morning or so I am told… @(^_^)@
Except that for KoW the stat adjustments are defined based on CoK and only apply to people running tournament packs. If you’re not playing a tournament it won’t effect you and if you are it is one book printed once a year that amends them. Equipment never changes as it has minimal impact so only the stat line changes or additional rules.
I am aware that GW release the generals handbooks but the last time I looked at one it didn’t rebalance every required unit of every faction so either the games are more balanced than they have been in 3 decades or they still mainly operate on a fire and forget mechanism, and having bought the rules and books I’ll stick with the later.
I’m not saying they are wrong to do it but I am saying it’s not an infrastructure for a game that appeals to me any longer, if indeed it did ever. But then the warhammer system was never designed for competitive play either as the designers have said in the past. The fact some players chose to attempt to shoe horn it into that area is compounded by the constant release schedule
I’m not aware of the specifics of the KoW adjustments to stats rather than points – I was just playing devil’s advocate that changing rules could be as disruptive as changing the points.
I’m mostly familiar with Age Of Sigmar, but if I recall 2nd edition in 2018 introduced points and the 2019 General’s handbook reviewed them all. However the point changes were published in a separate booklet that came with the book and so could be missed if the book is borrowed or similar. GW have stated in recent White Dwarf articles dedicated to the topics that they are committed to an annual review of all in-print warscrolls. At the moment the only ones excluded are discontinued lines such as Tomb Kings. They also review the scenarios with matched play in mind.
I’ve been thinking about alternative revenue streams or funding models for organisations that produce the products we game with…
Part of that stream is the new shinny models of course, which helps keep the punters interested…
But would you pay a subscription fee for a game that has a single ruleset edition, that could be kept in print, but no earth shattering new edition every X number of years?
Rules/points could be kept up to date via a List Builder, app and website, which could allow a printout with the relevant rules on it.
Or does a new edition re-ignite your passion every couple of years and gets you back playing the game?
New editions are a good jumping on point, but also a good jumping off point as well.
You know its a good one when Gerry brings up Charlie the Unicorn
Happy Sunday to one and all.In my perfect hobby world,rules are updated annually in the spring as @warzan was talking about.
Happy Sunday all!
I agree with @lloyd – I hate it when I think “I’ve got 20mins spare, lets whack on the XBox”, only to find it spends the next 10mins downloading updates!
In terms of rebalancing exercises you have to rebalance the ecosystem rather than a particular faction otherwise it becomes a perpetual battle between faction balance, so @dignity idea doesn’t work.
For example:
Month 1 – You balance Dwarfs to v2 against v1 Orcs and Elves
Month 2 – You now have to balance v1 Orcs against v2 Dwarfs and v1 Elves, which means you have to find a balance between v1 and v2 otherwise Elves are now left behind. So you either piss off Elves players by saying “your update is coming later” and who are stuck at v1 whilst Orcs and Dwarfs are v2, or you find the halfway which is effectively v1.5 Orcs and aggrieve the Orc players who feel that there hasnt been enough done to balance themn against the Dwarfs
Month 3 – Elves get balanced against v2 Dwarfs and v1.5 Orcs, Orc players still feeling aggrevied as they’re still not as good as Dwarfs, so where do you pitch the Elves, against v2 Dwarfs or v1.5 Orcs, do you bring them to v1.5, v1.75 or v2? Wheres the balance point?
Or to put it another way, Rock:”Scissors are fine, please fix Paper”
You can’t fix one without fixing all the others at the same time and maintain balance, you can’t isolate one faction to rebalance as the act of doing so imbalances the ecosystem.
So to summarise, for me, 1-2 global updates each year so everyone gets screwed over at the same time! 😀
I disagree with Justin on app cards. I don’t want app on phone, I want use cards. and I was told my stats are incorrect and not use them I am tired of that as I have no time build new army every week because they keep changing it. hence I cant be bothered to play game, I have old phone I lie but I have no space for new apps on it. period.
I personally hate apps during games. With the Warmahordes app I do screen captures and print those off at a5 size because my 50 year old eyes can’t cope with tiny text. I could easily fall prey to missing unit changes because of this.
@warzan Your point about memorizing your army is really important in certain games. For example Malifaux and Warmahordes are really combo driven games. Possessing multiple units with crossover abilities is often intrinsic to how a list works. King’s of War has a different feel where keywords and abilities aren’t necessarily intrinsic to how an army works on the table. Manufacturers have to take this into account in terms of the ecosystem of their game.
I would argue that rebalancing the rules and rebalancing the stat profiles are two separate things and their frequency should be assessed separatley. Outside of emergency fixes when huge problems are revealed, core rules should largely be left alone, with a rules errata only coming out once or twice a year. This way everyone can happily play within the same environment.
Statline, however can be looked at more often. If you know a large part of your catalogue is not seeing table time then I think it is in a companies best interests to always be looking towards making them more useful. You’re more likely to buy them, or you’ll feel less bad about having bought something that sits on a shelf forever. Or perhaps you’re less angry that your favourite models from Xth Edition are now useless in X+1th edition. A company should try to be always working towards getting its whole cataloge of interest to buy and play.
Any model that is OP, or possibly dominating the scene also needs attention. If it is a big problem then I feel the company should look towards a “hotfix” outside of any planned updates, although they should take the time to make sure thats not creating new isues.
I am a Warmachine/Privateer Press gamer and I like the way they have been doing their updates. You don’t seem to understand their system so I’m going to explain it here. It is on hold at the moment, and I feel it largely came about due to them not balancing things sufficiently between edition changes and most things needing attention.
Privateer Press do not chnage their core rules often They do do a periodic errata. Historically this has been 6 monthly. Not quite sure what it is now. We knew it was coming and they spelled out all the changes so it was nice and obvious. Admittedly, they just released a rules update (Oblivion) and there is no errata document to spell pout the changes, at least that I can see. The rules in their app are not updated to reflect this. Bad PP, bad!
As for the stat lines, PP have been operating their Community Integrated Development (CID) process for a while now. They pick one aspect of a faction (Lets say all the winter trolls from the troll faction) and present the changes they’re thinking of making. The public beta tests that for a week and feeds back, then new chages go out for public testing and the cycle goes on for a month. PP then sit and think on the feedback and tell people that in 2 months they will release the final changes and make them official.
We know what models are getting changes. We have an idea what those changes are likely to be. We know when they are coming far in advance, and even get to test some of them out. PP have tended toward sadjusting stat lines, or tweaking abilities, but they are not against adjusting points costs if they feel the model does what they want it to, but is overcosted for that. I know I would be very happy if they lowered the points of my models and I could add more to my army lists.
The one problem I have with this system is that it takes years to get every model through CID given that only 1/4 of 1 of their 13 factions is ever in CID at a given time. I have models that turned to trash in the edition change. A large chunk of my army isn’t worth putting on the table right now. I understand, as do PP, that you need to see what the knock on effects are to any changes. If they up the power of one unit, then it ups the usefullness of an enemy unit that counters them, which lowers the power of stuff thats bad against them and oh no I’ve gone cross-eyed.
I also suggest that casual/narrative gamers and competative gamers have different needs and wants, and will take different responsibilities towards being aware of changes. I love you guys and you shows, but you have no interest or appreciation for the competative approach for the game which means sometimes it feels like you poopoo things that appeal to competative gamers. I’ve not played against Justin so maybe they way he alpha strikes is a negative play experience, but I suspect he just plays with a competative mindset and no one would react to his style in a Warmachine/competative biased environment. Perhaps his style shouldn’t be mocked, but rather used for a different viewpoint in the studio? I do feel competative gameplay is often undervalued there. Perhaps you could send him off on a Vlog’ed journey in competative Warmachine? Send him off to tournaments and see if he can earn a place in the Warmachine and Hordes UK Super Series (http://wmhukiss.co.uk/) next year? I know every year I hope to see one of you at Blood and Oil (https://www.tiebreak.co.uk/bloodandoil-2020/feed). I live a 17 minute walk from the venue (I know because I had to nip home between rounds this year as I forgot my phone and timed myself so as not to miss the next round). I could house one of you for a couple of nights if needed, but I’ll offer up my house as a staging ground for OTT equipment, editors, etc if you wanted to send someone to attend B&O 2020. I already have my ticket. Some warning would be nice though!
On the subject of competative gaming, PP, and rules updates, PP just releasied their big oblivion update that made big changes just in time for an international event. The community knew it was coming long in advance and collectively decided wether or not to apply those changes to that event, weather or not PP had the changes out in time. Everyone knew enough about what was coming to tweak online list builders to allow both before and after building, and everyone could make informed decisions about which lists they would build before and after.
As for the PP App, it is not very good. They hired a games company to write a database app and it shows. However you do not need the app to play, even with the constant updates. Their entire card database is available online for free. you can tell it what cards you want and it’ll output them in to a printer friendly PDF so you can always play with physical cards.
TLDR: Rules updates should be 1-2 times a year. Stat updates should be a rolling process until everything is as balanced as can realistically be hoped for, and then a 6 monthly check can’t hurt. Everyone should always know whats coming when in advance though.
@stvitusdancern and @oriskany are sitting down for a recreation of the Waal River by 82nd Airborne Division (3rd Bn / 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment). This was part of Operation Market-Garden in the southern Netherlands, as famously recreated in the movie “A Bridge too Far.”
In order to seize a vital bridge over the Waal River, elements of 3/504 PIR (along with C/307th Airborne Engineers) must cross the river in improvised assault boats under heavy German fire (Kampfgruppe Reinhold, 10th SS Panzer Division) in order to attack the bridge from both ends at once.
We’re a little late for our 75th Anniversary recreation (20 September 1944), but this is a project we both wanted to do.
We’ll be live streaming this game at 12 Noon EST / 5PM UK time on the Sitrep Twitch Channel. We hope you’ll join us!
https://www.twitch.tv/sitreppodcast
I can’t say I’m thrilled by the idea of retaining points value and tweaking stats as a way to balance games. I want models to fight the same ways, e.g. dwarfs don’t get faster, or goblins get better in HTH to balance a game. These are maybe silly examples but I don’t like it.
(Disclaimer: not a KoW player)
hi @somegeezer I can see that point, but in the long run maybe it’s less disruptive to peoples army’s/collections (but more so to stratagems – granted).
If I have spent time building a unit, I think tweaking how it plays a bit may be better than changing it’s points.
Say for example I could no longer fit it in my list as it now costs to much or I need to have less of the unit on the table, therefore sidelining some of my hard work on the minis.
There’s definitely a good side to it: the 2000pt army I spent ages painting is still 2000pts after the update, I just find it odd that my troops change in ability purely to balance. I know it’s not specific to KoW and maybe better than Warhammer where I get a nerf and a points increase.
It’s a good solution for Kings of War as there is no casualty removal and units are a predetermined size with a predetermined footprint so it allows multibasing. For example, a troop of Dwarfs is a 100mmx40mm footprint, a regiment is 100mmx80mm and a horde 200mmx80mm. Because of the footprint many have based their armies as lots of small dioramas – once built, you don’t have the same flexibility to change your army about.
Yeah no “I’ll drop/add a couple of state troops to get to a round number”
Good morning. Going to watch this in intervals today due to having fun with the family with “Harry Potter: Hogwarts Battle”
@lloyd seems to be an expert on “dungeons” *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*
@warzan it’s pronounced “shly-ch” with the “ch” being a hissing sound like in “Reich” and not a “k” 😉
Dungeon traps: mimics are a must. And let them drop into a fast flowing underground river like in Terry Pratchetts “Thud!”
Sticks & Stones…. I can’t even start thinking of anything… and then have that all just given away… would make me cry still today.
Golden Buttons: I hate you aaaaaall…. you make my minis look like crap XD
Rules balancing: I think we need to differentiate between rules getting revisited (aka doing a V1.5 or rules overhaul) and balancing and tweaking by adjusting point costs. For me FFG hit a sweet spot for this with Legion. You have your written rules and points cost on the cards. That’s what you play your every day game by. In organized play there is a list with adjusted points for some units and gears. Currently that’s one page of paper. Those points will be adjusted purely online and will not be printed on the cards. Errata *will* get new cards on reprints. That way you have a solid game at the core and only if you really want to go hardcore tournament you need to worry about points being changed. And they are meaning to do this every 6 – 12 months IIRC
Nice show and talk… up to the next week!
😉 😉
Hey, community member here that lives in South Korea! When Ben makes his trip get in touch! We can ensure you have a good time.
But what if he really goes north? 😉
balls, that’s his secret mission revealed
In practice i’ve always been fine with rules being updated as and when, as long as i can get hold of them and afford them, be they errata, FAQs, or additions. I can understand that in theory it can take something away from the experience of getting a new game if the game has already been updated before you’ve actually received it, but in practice this has happened to me a lot and i’m ok with it. If a game is broken, or at least broken from the atart, that’s another matter, but one person’s broken is another person’s hobby. As far as i can tell there’s a sizable part of the industry based on what i would consider to be broken.
One other consideration i don’t think i’ve heard or seen mentioned is that a change in the rules is not necessarily a change for the better for everyone. A change might suit the majority but leave a substantial minority preferring the previous version.
The conversation has been about miniatures games for the most part. Collectible / Living / Tradable Card Games update frequently and regularly as part of the game.
For the ice cavern, why would you not use a hot wire cutter and blue insulation foam to create the peaks and then paint on mod podge on top to harden it and to give it the white for the snow. The blue would peak out from the white.
This would be far cheaper than all the items you just showed.
For the icicles, hot glue on glass. You make two and glue the flat sides together. Then you can use ink to give them some color.
In regards to games and technology, I am adverse to games that cannot be played without an app. However, using a tablet as a reading device does not bother me. So much information is in PDF or other formats. Guild Ball for example has everything online. I deal with technology all day as well, however, I have an Kindle for my reading. It is far easier than schlepping around 6 books or flipping between pages looking for tables. For my own, I have digitized parts of Frostgrave to make life easier.
Finally, I rather have a living rule book versus something like Catalyst which waits until they have a 50page plus of errata before they create a new book and often it is not new rules or balancing but simply keeping 30 yr olds alive.
FFG has periodic rule changes for the star wars games mostly for balance. They tell you when it is coming and for tournaments they tell you well in advanced of changes and the PDFs are available for you to print out if that is what you want to do.
Electronic rule books, army builders and tables does not bother me. If I was required to use an app to actually play the game, then i would have an issue.
In regards to the re-balance, I agree with @warzan but once per year is not enough for competitive play. Once per quarter would be the correct number of changes. If you wait a year, in competition the meta players would ruin most of the year because of some OP character per X-Wing 1.0. I agree with a limited scheduled update, but IMHO quarterly would be the best pace because you will have several tournaments within each quarter.
I will argue that many games have far too many tables and reference tables to memorize everything unless that is the only thing you play weekly. You need an app/tablet etc. For local shops in my area, they announce that we will be using X version of the rules so if there is a recent errata, you are not going to need to learn that two weeks before the tournament. They do not allow something other than version announced at the time you registered for the tournament. Weekly pick-up games is a different issue but most gamer’s can work that out.
Excellent Little Britain ref Gerry!
I may be way off on the topic but I have two thoughts:
First, I really only play Team Yankee right now and I find the balance really nice. If you play the armies out of the original rulebook then you will be at a disadvantage to the newer lists that have come out. The rules didn’t really need changed and did a lot to get the gameplay ready for FoW V4 as Team Yankee is really V3.5. The guys did make an adjustment to the armies with taking the armies out of the original book and expanding them into a full book each. Will the armies play differently after the new rules come out later this year as Team Yankee and FoW become one basic ruleset? I think so but those changes are expected and after a few years are a welcome re-balance to the game.
Second, one of the more interesting things that has been discussed over and over is paper v plastic. The idea a few years ago in education was to get every kid using plastic, or computers and tablets, for all education because it in the long run would be cheaper easier to be kept up to date and much more portable. One of the big issues with this is the research (and I am sorry I can’t find the article on this I saved) and this is only some of the research is showing that retention and comprehension are significantly (if I remember correctly, 15%) lower with plastic compared to paper. This was even when looking at the main 3 forms of learning reading, hearing, and doing.
So taking this all into account I think a system even if not perfect is better off just making the errata changes when necessary and constant rules changes seem to always unbalance something else. As a person I like my books and that being said I like my list building websites. So maybe we should just do what we like and play the games we like and if those need all the changes then that is the type of game you want to play.
Oh and @warzan maybe you could do the ice caverns as a project with the kiddos, paper mache outside before the weather gets bad and then have John do a nice paint up on it. These projects are easy when you have a @johnlyons
Thanks @warzan, you’ve reminded me it’s my brother in laws wedding anniversary coming up! (Same weekend as Jack was born!)
I do like the Fez with a brim look.
@warzan, my advice for ice cave would be 3d printing them (as it usually is these days). There are several different cave systems free on Thingiverse (from simple posable walls to full open lock systems). What I’d do is chose one, print it in lightest sky blue filament one can find, airbrush some darker blues and turquoises inks from bellow (just here and there, no uniform coat), and then dust everything with rattle can from above and finish it all with satin varnish (you may drybrush white before varnishing if you feel the need). You’ll have table worth of cavern terrain painted in 3-4 hours.
This what my fast search shown:
Open forge system:
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3511391
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3511445
Dungeon Sticks:
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3380643
Just put them on some snow matt.
And Idea for why go north? Of course north pole would be a seat of evil wizard plotting to imprison whole world in eternal winter. Who will stop him?
Caps: I trade fez for cepi any day of the week.
the interweb terrain looks really good and the beasties.
Most games that I get to play happen at organised play events – tournaments. Often against people I don’t know on a personal level and in a situation where many of the players have travelled to be there.
I need my games to be reasonably balanced products, because I don’t have the benefit of building an understanding with my opponents over time of what is and is not fun. So, I expect companies to be listening to player feedback and to make adjustments to any major balancing issues.
If a new release turns out to be dominating the meta, after a few months (when the novelty has worn off) I don’t want to know that we are stuck with it for the next year or more.
Personally I think 3 balance passes a year is about right. They don’t have to be complete reviews of the entire product line, just targeted looks at things released over the last 6-12 months that might be too strong and those units or characters that nobody is using at all.
Games should not be left to stagnate, but neither should we be bombarded by errata.
Have you thought of 3d printing for the ice cavern? I got some transparent PLA recently and although I haven’t used it yet I thought that might make something you could use, also you can find the files you want to print and get Justin to do it!!!!
nice one folks you will have to get Connery told he has the wrong colour tassel on.
Happy Sunday COGS. Warren you and Jack sounds like me and my Grandson Shopping,both he and I get what we need, only Grandma is not happy.
Thanks for telling me about TH-Miniatures, never knew about ’em. Nice to have a local to Canada [Quebec] to buy from!
On the rules discussion, I think Justin’s point was getting missed a bit. If you use WoW as an example, they do not make balancing changes to the game (unless a previous change proved to be “game-breaking”) outside of a major (quarterly’ish) patch that has been scheduled and highly communicated. So if you take this idea into the world of rulesets, minor updates like errata, rule clarification, or new units could be done on an as-needed basis, and then major updates like rebalancing would be done during the quarterly update.
Also, in WoW all updates are sent out on Tuesday’s during server maintenance and a similar standard release day could be established here. If you know that there is a potential for a rules update on Tuesday and that is your gaming night, perhaps you should review the release notes to see if there is anything that impacts you.
Good stuff as always. @warzan have you checked out Papo toys? They make similar stuff to Schleich. I’ll be adding a howdah to their mammoth and add some frostgrave barbarians as crew ?
Late to the party so apologies if I am covering ground someone has already previously mentioned in the posts and I missed it on my skim through…
@warzan that scenic mould you were looking at looked very detailed, but I’m just conscious that the pieces might not fare well around excited little hands. Given you have access to 3d printers, strongly recommend you consider working through some of the Printable Scenery options, specifically the ‘cavern tiles’ sets (although they do have a couple of crypt options in their open-lock system which may be of interest…).
For the ‘how did the adventurers end up in the frozen wasteland’ question, they could be locals raise din the area, sent by a northern town to investigate the unseasonably cold weather (evil wizard to the north has started an ice ritual or an ancient artefact has activated making the weather continually colder), local villagers have sent the adventurers to track down an expedition of hunters who have not returned from their last trip north, they are bounty hunters tracking a fugitive who has escaped north etc etc.
As far as encounters, not sure which particular brand of murder hobos you are leveraging off but D&D 3.5 was great for templates (A template being a stacked set of modifiers that was applied to any base creature to make it more challenging). You could take any creature that lives in colder climates and just call it a ‘Dire’ version of the base creature (make it bigger, cranky and belligerent and tougher/more hit points and you are away). Suddenly you have dire wolves, dire foxes, dire owls, dire bears, dire moles, dire mammoths etc etc. Or make up a ‘frost’ template or similar; so anything with the ‘frost’ template applied is immune to all cold damage/exposure, , has a blue hue to their skin, radiates a frosty aura, can exhale ice crystals or as far as you want to go. You can then have the staples like frost trolls, frost giants etc but also frost rats, frost ogres, frost elves without having to repurpose a bunch of miniature for monsters. Undead would also work well too in a frozen and long forgotten environment but may not be age appropriate…
As far as traps go, there are plenty in any DM’s guide or equivalent, or they can be randomly generated online and themed to fit with your setting. I highly recommend this site:
https://donjon.bin.sh/
Plus if you are in a frozen environment you can have fun with heat being a pseudo-trigger for traps. Ice on frozen lakes beginning to crack, frozen bridges collapsing, stalactites/frozen ice spikes descending from cavern ceilings. You may also have doors frozen shut o ice sheets over cave entrances, which might be a nice way of explaining why an area hasn’t been looted previously (provided your intrepid adventurers can work out a way to melt the ice away and get inside…).
Best of luck, let us know how you get on 🙂
@warzan we drew an ice themed dungeon a while ago on our Monday stream. theres a PDF free here https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/274452/Ice-Cave-Death
I think Warlords stance on how they handle the Gates of Antares rules to be the best. Looks like they may do a V 2.0 rulebook next year (and possibly a new “big box” starter set). So that’s about 4-5 years, but the main thing is that the army lists ARN’T in the rulebook. Instead they are available for FREE as a PDF and are continually adjusted and updated. These leaves the designers able to continually adjust things as players find ways to “break” the game with army list options.
Some players want a “codex” in hard print (as their background is more 40K) and can’t get their head around not having a Codex (and the power creep), and then waiting for another 2-3 years for the next Codex to appear (and their faction gets another boost to become top dog again). But the way Rick and Tim (and Warlord) have decided to handle things just means a lot more balanced experience and continual/gradual changes to the “balance” of the game.
BTW the V 2.0 rules aren’t going to be a major re-write (in the manner of the editions of 40K from GW), but more of a reorganisation and clarification pass on the rules (also compiling the additional rules for things that appeared later in the campaign books), so REALLY looking forwards to this 🙂
Couldn’t agree more! The free available armylists make it really easy to build your force. When v2 drops, I’ll finally dig in completely ^^
I agree that true balancing of any of the larger games is essentially impossible. I think the problem only increases with the number of factions and types of troops. I would argue that AoS is more balanced than 40K. In the game club I frequent 40K is the more popular game seeing on the chat what gets talked about as new releases are put out is interesting but also frustrating. There are so many people that math hammer the crap out of every release that it takes the fun out of it for me. I get that for tournaments, if that is your thing, that you want an army that has a shot so you are going to maybe concentrate on the effectiveness of your army. The combination of wounds, attacks and point cost go into the calculation of what is an effective army. I on the other hand think “those models look cool”, “I like the fluff for that faction”, “I’m going to play them”. I really don’t worry about if they are a competitive army or not. I don’t want to be tabled in the first turn and if I did I’d know not to play that army/person again.
I think skirmish games are a bit easier to balance. The other thing that might make a difference if as part of the rules you state that your army must be composed of various types of troops. Age of Sigmar does this by requiring battle line troops and leaders, reinforcements, etc. You have the choice as to what and how many of the battle line troops you want (there is a minimum) and which leader(s) you want, etc. I get the impression that any faction could win against any other. It is absolutely true that some factions are stronger than others but who knows. A good example is the latest Cities of Sigmar Battletome. Stormcast can only be a maximum of one quarter of your army. I like little rules like this as it means that I’ll see highly varied armies on the table. My experience is that there is is less math hammering in Age of Sigmar but I’m sure it exists.
I agree that I want a book and I think a FAQ/Errata can come out any time. An update that changes things for balancing reasons should only be done once a year. Again GW does this with there Chapter Approved for 40K and Generals Handbook for AoS. I know it sounds like I’m a GW shill but at this time they are the games I’m most familiar with as they are by far the most popular at the club.
When are we getting CoG Gear dudes would love to get some stuff.
@warzan, I would recommend having a look at the Fighting Fantasy book ‘Caverns of the Snow Witch’. I think you could get a lot of inspiration from that. It is also digitally available on Steam here: https://store.steampowered.com/app/324730/Caverns_of_the_Snow_Witch_Standalone/
I would get annoyed if they constantly change the stats, I don’t mind the point changes and building a new list if necessary. But I remember most of the stats for everything I use in wargames and that makes the games go smoother for me as well. If they’d change that every time, it will just slow down the game for me.
Thanks gentlemen for yet another enjoyable and stimulating show. Whilst I agree in principle with Gerry’s point, to give PP their credit, you can download stat cards for EVERY model they sell for free from https://cards.privateerpress.com/ allowing you to effectively play the game for free using whatever models you wish. I am an avid Warmachine player and still play MkII and even the odd game of Mk1. I did love the old rulebooks however, which included all the rules for all 4 main Warmachine factions back in the day and although I do have the WarRoom app, I’ve never played a game of MkIII as personally (like you said), I prefer my hobby to be separated from digital devices which seem to dominate our lives these days.