GW sales down
Garth
company. The intellectual challenges and emotional rewards, even in a year
of declining sales, are always there.
This year has seen both sales and profits decline. The decline in sales was
expected, but it has been hard to project accurately the amount. Most of the
decline is due to the trading cycles I spoke about last year - partly
product cycles and partly channel problems.
Some of it, though, is our own fault. During the good times, when life is
easy, it's possible to forget the good habits that earned those good times.
All of us forgot some of those good habits, and some of us forgot all of
them. This is something I have been working at all year (and much of the
previous year) to put right. I believe there is now evidence that we are
putting it right. The standards of service which built this company are
returning.
Profits are down as well. With declining profits we had a duty to look at
our costs. The key question we asked ourselves was: is this still a growth
business? The answer was a clear 'yes' and so it would have been crazy to
take out the facilities we had just built or those temporarily unprofitable
Hobby stores. We never intended cutting costs so deeply that the
infrastructure of the business that we need for our future growth would be
damaged. Nevertheless the fact that profits aren't even lower than they are
is due to Paul Thomas (Manufacturing and Supply division) and Mark Wells
(Hobby division) who have managed the reductions in costs superbly, and far
better and further than your chairman would have.
In a bad year the management and staff of Games Workshop have taken the
opportunity to re-establish a lean and efficient company, one that will
reward owners richly as growth returns and profit and cash start flowing
again.
Hard times reveal the quality in a business and I'm proud to be associated
with the people who run this one.
During the year I have been taken to task by some owners - both individual
and corporate - over our (my) refusal to do 'something' about the share
price. I believe I do 'something' about the share price all day every day
and that 'something' is to run this company the best way I know how for
long-term success. By long-term I mean 20 years or more. Leaving aside the
dubious morality of trying to manipulate the share price on a daily basis
(and my inevitable insanity) it is simply not practicable. Owners who share
my view that I should focus all my energy on the long-term growth of the
business will be pleased to hear that I will do nothing that is designed to
engineer a short-term change in the share price. Owners who are disappointed
by that news may wish to reconsider their investment positions.
On the 'investor relations' section of our corporate web site (which has all
our annual reports since 2001, and the institutional presentations we make)
there is a place where people can post questions for me to answer. Mostly
they are about what new models we are planning (read White Dwarf), or why we
haven't got a store in Omaha, Nebraska (yet), or why we put our prices up
all the time (we don't) but every now and then I get one that touches on
something that needs to be explained. Blair Svendson from Missouri asked
'[why am I] seeing my favorite independent hobby stores going out of
business?'. He was referring to the United States, and so is my response.
This is a question that concerns all of us at Games Workshop - staff,
managers, customers and owners. I'm not certain I know THE answer, but I
have an explanation that fits the facts. Most of these small owner-manager
hobby stores have thrived over the last 20 years or so on role play games,
collectible card games (CCGs) and niche merchandise from fantasy movie
imagery. Role play games and movie merchandise are in decline; CCGs can now
be bought in mass market outlets which hurts hobby store sales. Many of
these stores carry our products very successfully, but they are not enough
to support the whole store. Additionally many of these stores are run as
lifestyle enterprises rather than as for profit businesses; when times get
hard they sometimes respond slowly and weakly which can be, and has been in
many cases, disastrous.
I have written in the past about the basics of the Games Workshop business
model and mentioned in passing that it is predicated upon the desire to own
(lots of) miniatures. I shouldn't just mention it in passing because feeding
this desire is the fundamental thing that we do. What causes these
characteristics in people I don't know, but I do know that out there in the
world is the gene that makes certain people (usually male) want to own
hundreds of miniatures. We simply fill that need - it's not new (we didn't
create it). What we do is make wonderful miniatures in a timeless and
culturally independent way and sell them at a profit. Everything else we
make and do is geared around that end. The games and stories provide the
context for the miniatures, our stores are recruitment centres that simply
give an opportunity to innate miniatures lovers to know themselves. Alan
Merrett ** and I were sitting ruminating about this basic truth last week. I
was reflecting on how it was sometimes hard for potential owners to
understand the basics of the business and why it was so long-term and
resilient. He reminded me how many of the people who work here forget it.
There is so much stuff going on: so many army lists, so many designs, so
many kits, so many campaigns, so many events, so many new stores, so many
independent stockists, so many management issues that even the people who
work here can forget from time to time that all we are doing, every day, is
selling more toy soldiers, at a profit, to people who are truly grateful.
At last year's staff meeting (which we hold annually to discuss the year's
results with staff) I was asked what interest 'the City' took in our
environmental and community programmes. I said 'not much' which, given the
number of questions I had had on the topic from institutional investors on
the road show, was an exaggeration. On reflection I think this was a pretty
poor answer. Firstly, I had forgotten the thousands of owners who do not
benefit from a corporate road show who might care very much indeed and,
secondly, I was dismissing way too lightly the enormous amounts of effort
put into these schemes by Games Workshop staff. Later in this report you'll
be able to read about these programmes. They are important to us for two
reasons. Firstly, they are important because the good habits they demand
usually result in better practices, which in turn lead (you've guessed it)
to more profit. Secondly, and this is the bigger reason, they are important
because they are the right things to do.
* fun, that is, so long as you don't want to win popularity contests or
track your personal net worth on a daily basis
** Alan is one of a small group of people who are responsible for helping
line management maintain the integrity of our products and our business. He
tends to get very passionate and excited when making points in debate and
thus gets called 'Ranter' Merrett which is a bit unfair, but funnier than
Alan 'Very Passionate And Excited' Merrett.
Business Review
Summary of results:
This year our sales and profits have fallen for two main reasons: firstly,
the continuing decline in sales following an exceptional trading period *,
and secondly, the continued reduction in our sales to independent toy and
hobby retailers, notably in the US, where many smaller independent operators
are ceasing to trade.
Following the decline in sales, management faced three issues. Firstly, the
need for all staff to be focused on the temporary nature of the decline.
Secondly, during the rapid sales upturn between 2002 and 2004, some of the
good habits on which we have built the business became eroded. Thirdly, over
the same period, our traditional product stream became disrupted. The first
was the easiest to deal with - we all knew the franchise was sound and
undamaged - all we had to do was to remind everyone to be patient. The
second required us to work hard at re-training and re-invigorating our staff
in the basics of providing our normal, exceptional, customer service. As
regards the third we are now engaged in the process of re-establishing our
normal product life cycles.
We have also taken the opportunity to examine closely the costs that have
come into the business over the last few years. We believe we have made
significant inroads into the extra costs that had crept in.
The results of this work leave the Company in a more healthy state at the
end of this year than at its beginning. In the first half of the year we
reported a sales decline of 20%. In the second half this decline slowed to
12%. By the end of the year our Games Workshop Hobby stores in seven of our
nine sales businesses, including both the US and the UK - our two largest
businesses - were recording growth.
Despite the lower production volumes resulting from the decline in sales, we
have been able to maintain and improve our gross profit margin to 70%. This
is due to price rises, improved operational efficiency from the capital
investments which have now been completed in our manufacturing facilities at
both Nottingham and Memphis, and the sourcing of bought-in components and
print more cost effectively from both Europe and Asia.
Additionally we have reduced overheads by £2.8 million during the year,
whilst increasing our expenditure on customer facing activities including a
net increase of ten new Hobby stores since May 2005.
Click here for the COMPLETE Breakdown (PDF)
donovan...@yahoo.com
Garth wrote:
> Business Review
>
> Summary of results:
> This year our sales and profits have fallen for two main reasons: firstly,
> the continuing decline in sales following an exceptional trading period *,
> and secondly, the continued reduction in our sales to independent toy and
> hobby retailers, notably in the US, where many smaller independent operators
> are ceasing to trade.
My take on this:
Ordering direct from GW is currently paintful for two reasons. Firstly,
shiping starts at $7 regardless of whether it's a box set or a single
crossbow bit. Secondly, the US website has been gutted of bits,
archive, and even a lot of their blister packs! (and 99% of my GW
online orders *were* that). Calling in to talk to a "troll" is not as
convenient as "click click bloody click".
Independent online stuff: In my opinion, GW made a mistake in making
their stuff harder to get at competitive prices. There's been countless
times where I've wanted to make GW purchases from the Warstore or
similar, but I have to have the item number and I have to call before
6pm EST or whatever. Not entirely difficult, but I'll be honest, I have
a lot of things to spend my money on, and all things being equal, I'll
choose to spend money whichever way is easiest and/or decide to do it
"another day". Go through hoops to blow money on toys, or get ____ that
I need and are 5 minutes away? Hmm...it's pretty bad when I'm
procrastinating about buying miniatures when I have fun money!
Independent Stockist: I live in an area with 4 brick and mortar stores
that carry GW. Only one has shelf space that resembles an actual store,
and that one only carries 40K because they're waiting for the new WHFB
to come out before setting their display. The other 3 have had so much
hassle with GW...slow/late as hell restock shipments, the eternal crap
over trying to order what they want vs. what GW wants them to carry
etc., it's rarely worth it to go in anymore as they have the same 14
dusty blister packs hanging on the rack for months. Laughably, all 4 of
these places are listed as full blown Rogue Traders in the White Dwarf
pull out, but only one has an actual gaming table much less painting
classes etc.
This kind of makes me sad though, and it happens regularly:
Me: "Do you not have __(GW product)__ in?"
FLGS guy: "No, but I can order it and you can come get it in 3-4 days.
Me: At 20% off?"
FLGS guy: "Er...no."
Me: "No that's okay, I'll get it from the Warstore in the same time,
delivered to my door, and at discount. If you could do 20% off I'd go
through you."
FLGS guy: "Er...no."
Me: Ok. "Sorry, hope your comics and CCGs carry you." (being serious)
Later:
Me: Okay, I'll call the Warstore and get it at 20% off, and a few other
things. Crap, it's after 6pm. Oh well, I didn't need to drop a few
hundred right now anyway.
---
What does this mean to me, altogether?
I'm spending a declining amount of money on GW stuff. Why go through
the hoops to impulse buy when I've got tons of stuff already? If one
were to retrace my buying habits over the years, they would see most of
my GW purchases are about 40% planned and 60% impulse purchases. I
haven't been making the 60% impulse purchases, and about 20% of my
planned purchases are put on the backburner.
I'm pretty certain that if online discounters like the Warstore were
allowed to put GW stuff in their own online shopping cart, and GW put
the entire bits/specialist/blister listing back up online, they'd get a
big and steady shot in the arm. Who loses out on having GW stuff
discounted online? Not GW. The online retailer takes a hit on his
margin per unit to increase the profit on the bulk. Not every online
retailer can make a profit on the short margin, or has a reputation to
carry it steady (look at newwave.org LOL).
GW, wake f&$k up. America is a big ass market, but we're finicky as
hell. Begin your pandering now and get the profits or someone else
will.
Now where's that link to the Perry brothers website again? Ah, I'll
spend money there then, GW. So sorry to disturb you with my attempts to
buy your shit, GW.
Myrmidon
gar...@gmail.com says...
Hello Garth,
Thanks for the posting - by chance can you post a link to this
item and/or the PDF mentioned at the bottom?
<massive snippage>
>
> On the 'investor relations' section of our corporate web site (which has all
> our annual reports since 2001, and the institutional presentations we make)
> there is a place where people can post questions for me to answer. Mostly
> they are about what new models we are planning (read White Dwarf)
Ah, how investor friendly that is. In other words, the investors can go
out and *BUY* GW's monthly advertisment just so that they can know
what's going on with their investment. Good to see that GW doesn't
descriminate when it comes to pissing on those who provide financial
support one way or another.
> , or why we
> haven't got a store in Omaha, Nebraska (yet), or why we put our prices up
> all the time (we don't)
Hey, good thinking here. Welcome to the word 'semantics' ladies and
gentleman. GW drops a few individual model / unit prices while
increasing the *OVERALL* price of their core ranges - but apparently
continues to assume that we the customers are to stupid to figure this
out? I'd be *MIGHTY IMPRESSED* if GW could show the gaming community
even a single instance in the last 10 to 15 years where the *OVERALL*
price of their core ranges went down rather than up.
> but every now and then I get one that touches on
> something that needs to be explained. Blair Svendson from Missouri asked
> '[why am I] seeing my favorite independent hobby stores going out of
> business?'. He was referring to the United States, and so is my response.
> This is a question that concerns all of us at Games Workshop - staff,
> managers, customers and owners. I'm not certain I know THE answer, but I
> have an explanation that fits the facts. Most of these small owner-manager
> hobby stores have thrived over the last 20 years or so on role play games,
> collectible card games (CCGs) and niche merchandise from fantasy movie
> imagery. Role play games and movie merchandise are in decline; CCGs can now
> be bought in mass market outlets which hurts hobby store sales.
Remind me again how long the CCG market's been around? It sure as hell
isn't 20 years. And correct me if I'm wrong, but is WTC and the D20
system in major financial decline? I would agree that the RPG industry
saw a decline in the mid 80s to mid or late 90's, but I have yet to see
any indication of an over-all decline in the RPG industry in the last 5
to 7 years or more. In fact quite the opposite. While some of the
massive number of initial offerings from small distributors for the D20
system have disappeared - hell they even brought back 'Gama-World' for
crying out loud! - (in more than a few cases better products beating out
lesser offerings) there are still a metric ton of new RPG systems out on
the market catering to a wide variety of interests. Star Wars, Star
Trek, Babylon 5, Fire Fly, Stargate SG-1, Gurps, White Wolf, BESM,
DreamPod9, etc. Seeing more gaming systems and products than ever on
the market and expanding product lines for these same products, I'm less
than inclined to buy into 'The RPGs and CCGs killed FLGS' idea.
> Many of
> these stores carry our products very successfully, but they are not enough
> to support the whole store. Additionally many of these stores are run as
> lifestyle enterprises rather than as for profit businesses; when times get
> hard they sometimes respond slowly and weakly which can be, and has been in
> many cases, disastrous.
>
While it's certainly nice to see a bit of acknowledgement that
GW's own practices have harmed it, he still doesn't seem to be able to
grasp that a lot of small FLGS have gotten out of the GW business (even
if they're still in business) because of GW's crappy treatment of those
same FLGS owners. Add in the less than brilliant idea to kill off on-
line discount sales in the US at roughly the same time frame as one of
GW's price hikes (which encourage a good number of folks to drop GW from
their gaming habits all together) and GW is puzzled that FLGS that made
a sizeable income on GW item sales are taking a hit?
<More snippage>
>
> ** Alan is one of a small group of people who are responsible for helping
> line management maintain the integrity of our products and our business. He
> tends to get very passionate and excited when making points in debate and
> thus gets called 'Ranter' Merrett which is a bit unfair, but funnier than
> Alan 'Very Passionate And Excited' Merrett.
>
OMG! GW's taken to naming staff after RGMW members - the horror! ;)
>
> Business Review
>
> Summary of results:
> This year our sales and profits have fallen for two main reasons: firstly,
> the continuing decline in sales following an exceptional trading period *,
> and secondly, the continued reduction in our sales to independent toy and
> hobby retailers, notably in the US, where many smaller independent operators
> are ceasing to trade.
This openly begs the question: Why wouldn't the Independants want to
stop dealing with GW? Often the hastle, harrasement, and out-right
dishonesty with which GW sales and support treats the independant store
owners is utterly appalling.
I've spoken with independant store owners throughout the US and even in
Canada who've all pointed out the following...
Support promises by sales department that never materialize including:
Gaming tables
Display materials (I know one owner who was promised one of the large
'life sized' marines when they made their initial order which was in the
high tens of thousands of dollars, and has never received it inspite of
continuing promises.)
Outrider/RTT tournament support.
Limited edition items that are promised show up late, in lower amounts
than promised, or simply don't show up at all.
Sales irregularities...
Overcharging accounts (sometimes for multiple months in a row) *AND*
being extremely slow restore the over-charged funds.
Charging accounts *months in advance* of new product delievery after
promising NOT to place the charges until the product was available for
shipping.
(Prior to GW's Ending the US on-line discount stores) It was common to
have on-line discount retailers point out that their shipments were
routinely late or shorted (inspite of the fact that they routinely
placed orders in the range of 200K dollars or more a month with GW).
[I'd be more than willing to bet that even now, Indie stores that do
better sales are shorted new items rather than short GW stores with low
sales.]
Being forced to carry or initially buy entire sets of *ALL* GW's core
products in order to carry or sell any GW product at all even when
particular store owners knew that certain lines would not sell well in
their area .
Being pressured on a monthly basis to order items that they didn't
want/need/weren't selling well simply because regional GW sales managers
wanted the books to look good no matter what.
Being promised that they (the independants) would be able to return 'old
stock' that wasn't selling when newer product lines came out in exchange
for the newer versions (or at least new items at a discount) only to
find later that they were effectively lied to.
I can't imagine why GW would be having a hard time with declining sales
at independant retail shops...
Myrmidon
--
#1582. I think they call it Warhammer "40K" because that is how
much you are going to have to make per year in order to play.
- Eric Noland
# 1082. Pound for pound I can buy cocaine cheaper than
raise a Warhammer army
- Roy Cox
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/gwprice/
****
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
Or...
William Staley
"Garth" <gar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:BGbyg.182852$F_3.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
I believe this might also be the result of many patriotic hobbyists being
deployed overseas. I had an easy dozen pals in the army for my gaming
group. And my local hobby store owner has definitely noticed the overall
drop in action.
I pray that my fellow hobby enthusiasts in uniform return safely to roll the
bones.
B
FunkyD
hobby just about out of reach of children.
Games Workshop makes toys. Children are the worlds largest consumers
of toys.
The spiral of increasing prices to keep profits up is a slippery slope,
and sure, it works for a while. In the end, you wind up with
financials that look like the ones they have now.
Good luck GW. There aren't enough hobbiests in the world to support
your increasing appetite. Go on a diet, cut prices since your costs
have reduced dramatically, and support the game and the hobby with some
effort.
D
Ty
news:BGbyg.182852$F_3.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> This year has seen both sales and profits decline. The decline in sales
> was expected, but it has been hard to project accurately the amount. Most
> of the decline is due to the trading cycles I spoke about last year -
> partly product cycles and partly channel problems.
GW's sales dropped 15.5% (£136m in 05 to £115m in 06) but their net pre-tax
profit dropped 73% (£13.39m in 05 to £3.7m in 06). GW's fiscal year ends in
May, so "06" is actually from May 29, 2005 through May 28, 2006. In
addition, their profit margin plunged as well -- from 10.8% in 05 to 3.21%
in 06. For a manufacturing company, this is a lousy margin.
By any rational measure, this is a severe financial blow and should cause
serious concerns about the company's long term business prospects. That
said, GW should be in no immediate danger. In May, GW had net current assets
of £10.0m (net current assets = current assets [assets they could get there
hands on relatively quickly] - current liabilities [payable in 12 mos or
less]). The point is that GW *did* make a (small) profit, and appears to
have adequate liquidity (£6.44m) to ride out any likely cash flow crises.
I see two main dangers --
1. GWs stock price will fall, making it an attractive target for a hostile
takeover. While it seems hard to imagine that someone else could operate GW
any worse (from a customer perspective), I can assure you that such is
possible. Far more worrying to me is the possibility that management would
spend their time trying to prevent such a takeover. This usually includes
tactics to keep the stock price up in the short run, but that have long term
negative effects. GW is already doing this to some extent; they are keeping
their stock dividends the same as 2005, despite the 73% drop in profits.
This cost them £5.8m last year; such dividends this year will effectively
wipe out all profit and consume a fair chunk of their cash. Since GW's cash
position isn't great to begin with, I consider this a desperation ploy.
2. While it made a profit this year, GW could quickly find itself losing
lots of money. It's hard to say for sure, but when profits drop 5 times as
much as sales, I find there are usually only a few causes:
-Sales are being articifially propped up by spending excessive amounts
on marketing and promotion. This would lower profits and the gross margins.
The chilling implication here is that sales would be even lower if GW had
reasonable margins. However, there's little evidence for this in my opinion.
The cost of goods sold % (the percentage of sales that are paid to make the
stuff sold) has declined from 33.4% in 01 to 29.6% in 06. So the stuff isn't
costing as much to make these days. Operating expenses -- all the costs that
aren't directly related to making the products -- grew from £51m in 01 to
£80.6m in 05. Sales grew from 92.6m in 01 to 136.6m in 05. So through 2005,
GW's operating expenses grew at about the same rate as sales. But this is
critical -- both declined in 2005 and again in 2006 (see below). Bottom line
is that GW operational costs and manufacturing costs are in line with
historical numbers.
-Sales are rapidly declining due to a contraction in the target market
or poorly conceived pricing (or both). The company is as efficient as it
ever was, but the sales are simply not there. The historical evidence is
compelling:
Year Sales
2001 - 92.6
2002 - 108.6
2003 - 129.1
2004 - 151.8
2005 - 136.6
2006 - 115.2
This is devastating in GW's case because the sales appear to be very close
to the break even point. GW, like all companies, has costs that vary with
sales (cost of goods sold for instance), and "fixed costs" -- costs that
don't vary much with sales. From their financial statements, I'd estimate
this number to be about £76m. *Radical* restructuring can reduce this number
a bit, but this can kill the stock price (and cripple the company). Since
30% of the sales go to making the product (and are usually paid within 30
days of making the product), you can see the math. The bottom line is
that -- assuming the same manufacturing costs and operating costs -- if 2007
sales decline by the same percentage as they did this year, GW will lose
£6-7m in 2007. And if it continues, they will lose £18m in 2008. They do not
have the cash to sustain such losses, which will make the actual losses even
worse. And at such a burn rate, they will be insolvent in 2009, if not
sooner.
Of course, such Armageddon scenarios should be taken with one major
caveat -- this assumes GW does nothing different. In the real world, this
seldom happens.
So what could GW do to halt the slide?
Some factoids first. Geographically, their sales are distributed thusly --
Europe - 43%, UK - 26%, Americas - 24%, Asia/Pacific - 7%. Their product
distribution -- 42% through local hobby stores (45% in 05), 48% through GW
stores (45% in 05) and 10% direct (9% in 07). The percentage of sales from
local hobby stores has declined slightly, but not much. Direct (internet)
sales -- 2002 - 9%; 2003 - 7%; 2004 - 7%; 2005 - 9%; 2006 - 10%.
If the market is truly declining, then they can (a) radically downsize; or
(b) raise huge sums of additional capital to spend on marketing to grow the
market. GW did cut its administrative costs in 06; had they not done this,
they'd have posted a slight loss. Since they're so close to the break even
point, additional marketing would have to be extremely effective in the
short term. A tall order I'd think.
If the market is still there -- as GW management claims -- then the problem
is simply stated. Increase sales without increasing operating expenses. Or,
significantly reduce production costs. I don't think that they can cut their
production costs radically. They've modestly reduced the cost of goods from
33% to 29% over the last six years. Hard to see any radical decrease in this
number. In fact, every number except sales (and therefore profit) is in line
with past numbers. So sales is the problem. And increasing sales is the
solution.
So why have sales declined if the market is still there?
A couple of economic factoids first -- all else being equal, increasing
prices reduce demand. If demand exceeds supply, the price will normally
increase. If prices don't increase, there will be shortages of the product
in the marketplace. The seller's goal is to price his product at the most
profitable level, taking into account plant capacity, cost of manufacturing,
market size, desired rate of return, etc. Manufactured products usually get
cheaper as production volume increases. So, all else being equal, more
profit is earned if more manufactured goods are produced in a given period.
The implication of these basic economic facts is that price increases will
usually benefit a seller up to a certain point -- typically when the demand
matches his ability to produce and distribute the product. After that point,
price increases will drive demand down, which will result in lowered
production, loss of economies of scale, and reduced profit.
So here are my thoughts on why GW's sales are down.
1. Prices. After many years of raising prices to unprecedented levels, GW
may have crossed the point of maximum profit noted above. At some point,
people will spend their money on other things, even if they like GW stuff.
The problem is that the perfect price point is hard to find...and changes
constantly. There is some evidence that GW has raised prices beyond what the
market can bear. As noted, their production costs were 33% of sales in 2004
(their best year). Their production costs are now 29% of sales. Assuming
that GW hasn't gotten any more efficient, then they have increased prices
relative to costs. This means that GW has charged more simply because they
could do so, not because their costs went up. The largest price increases
(as percentages) appear to have fallen in 2005 and 2006...the very years
sales have plummeted. Maybe coincidence. But...an economist would predict a
reduction in total sales after the optimum price point is reached. And the
rate of sales decline would increase as prices are raised. Exactly what
appears to have happened in this case.
2. Customer Anger. I think that this is overrated, at least with regards to
gamers. However, GW is seeing a drop in sales from local hobby shops. Since
this was about half of their sales in 2004, it seems woefully shortsighted
to alienate local retailers. Their reduction in retail discounts last year
was particularly ill-advised in my opinion. If a retailer makes less money
on a product, he'll be less inclined to push it. And if price increases
reduce demand for that product, well, you can see the problem.
3. Strength of the pound. The pound has increased 1/3 in value relative to
the US dollar since the late 1990s. This makes GW products more expensive
when bought in US dollars. As noted, higher prices reduce demand (and lower
sales).
4. Crappy Rules. Sorry, but I think that Warhammer and WH40K suck. With
sufficient effort and hassle, they can be made playable (barely). But they
have systemic problems that cannot be solved, only mitigated. And if I'm
right, this could account for the reason sales are off. While collectors are
a small part of the market, most people buy the miniatures to *play* with.
If the game sucks, less playing will happen. And eventually, less sales.
5. Poor resource allocation. Much is made of the disappointing performance
of the LOTR line. No hard data is available to support this. However, if the
line is a problem, then GW inflicted its own injuries. First, anyone with
business experience should expect for demand to soften after the last movie
runs its course. So high expectations after that are unwarranted. Second,
what idiot came up with the idea of making LOTR figures incompatible with
existing GW fantasy figures? Finally, how could GW possibly execute a
license that would leave them exposed if demand declined after the last
movie -- as any reasonable person would expect. Personally, I don't buy it.
Possible Solutions --
1. Spend more money on marketing to increase sales. Well, they seem to be
doing this already, and sales declined by 31% over 2 years. And I don't
think they have the cash to do it -- especially after paying out £5m to
investors as dividends.
2. Raise prices (again). This will fail, IMHO, and will lead to more sales
decline (or it will stall other strategies that might have increased sales).
Unfortunately, GW's history indicates a tendency to constantly raise prices.
And price increases can often provide short term increases in sales, which
is attractive to executives desperate to keep stock prices up. The problem
is this -- GW raised prices an average of about 20%, yet total sales
declined by 30%. They've announced other price increases that seem to
average about 20%. Why wouldn't we expect these increases to have the same
result? If they do, then GW will be out of business (or bought in a
takeover) in a couple of years. Sadly, I see this as the most likely
strategy.
3. Lower prices. Though unprecedented, this could work. Most of the numbers
in 2006 are the same as in 2004 -- except sales (and profit). So maybe a
return to 2003 pricing levels would accomplish a turnaround. The problem is
that this would be a very risky strategy and I am dubious that GW's
management would take the risk. Personally, I think this is the best
strategy.
4. Abandon the core Warhammer/WH40K rules and rewrite them from the ground
up. Optimize them for fast play and for large armies. If GW doesn't want to
piss off current players, offer the new rules as free downloads and continue
to support the old rules for awhile. Won't happen, IMHO. GW is wedded to
these mediocre systems for some unfathomable reason.
5. Cut retailer discounts again. This has the same problem as raising
prices -- it reduces demand because it lowers a retailer's incentive to push
GW products.
6. Increase retailer discounts. Same advantages as lowering prices. And just
as unlikely IMHO.
7. Try to expand direct (internet) sales. In theory, this is a highly
profitable activity, since no brick and mortar stores are required. The
problem is that there is little evidence that this market can really be
expanded that much. While the percentage of direct sales has increased 50%
over the last 5 years, the amount sold has seen only a modest increase --
£9.7m in 2002 vs £11.5 in 2005. This implies that there is a fairly limited
amount of money that will be spent on direct sales. Marketing is unlikely to
change that. The only thing that could dramatically increase these sales
would be a significant discount on prices. Unfortunately, this would enrage
42% of the distribution chain. And such a discount would reduce GW's profit
on the internet sales, reducing the advantage (to GW) of those sales. A very
foolish and short-sighted strategy IMHO. So of course, I expect that GW will
do it. Note the mention of a "new internet strategy".
8. Radical restructuring. Costly and could scare investors. TO have any
chance of working, there would have to be specific operations that were
unprofitable that could be eliminated. I doubt this will be the solution.
Well, it should be interesting. Of course, GW will show a boost in sales in
the second half of 2006 -- it has every year except 2005. But the long term
challenges look formidable.
--Ty
Playa
Hey,
Ty wrote:
> GW may have crossed the point of maximum profit
Considering the dynamics involved, this would have happened some time
ago.
And, I think the Regs could pinpoint *exactly* when that line was
crossed.
> the perfect price point is hard to find
It's almost certainly harder than I think it is, but then, I'm not
inhumanly greedy.
> GW's history indicates a tendency to constantly raise prices
"Boss! I cut this pipeline off, and now it's not long enough!"
"Cut it again, you fool! And keep cutting til you get it right!"
> GW raised prices an average of about 20%, yet total sales declined by 30%
Let's all just admire the poetic symmetry of this statement for a while
. . .
> Radical restructuring. Costly and could scare investors
To hell with investors. They can get out and find real jobs.
GW's just a Mom-n-Pop boutique industry that got too big for its
britches.
All of this FUD is merely their just comeuppance, long overdue.
Radical restructuring? Just hand GW back to Priestly and Co.
The Specialist crew could run it better from a trailer parked behind
the Foundry.
Playa
--
"Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished."
- A wishful thinker
Ty
news:1154104877....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Hey,
> Ty wrote:
>> GW may have crossed the point of maximum profit
> Considering the dynamics involved, this would have happened some time
> ago.
The financial statements give support to the idea that that point was
crossed in 2004, which would imply that 2003 pricing was "optimum". For GW,
that is.
In 2004, GW had its highest sales *and* its highest profits over the last 6
years. Yet sales dramatically declined after that. I think a strong case can
be made that they crossed the tipping point at that time.
> And, I think the Regs could pinpoint *exactly* when that line was
> crossed.
>> the perfect price point is hard to find
> It's almost certainly harder than I think it is, but then, I'm not
> inhumanly greedy.
<shrug>
"Greed" is one of those words that have no economic meaning. Often, I think
the definition is much like the definition of "rich" -- "someone who has
more than I do."
In any case, GW's profits are not excessive for manufacturing companies.
They made a 10 percent net profit in 2004, which is hardly "gouging".
>> GW's history indicates a tendency to constantly raise prices
> "Boss! I cut this pipeline off, and now it's not long enough!"
> "Cut it again, you fool! And keep cutting til you get it right!"
Now that's funny :-)
>> GW raised prices an average of about 20%, yet total sales declined by 30%
> Let's all just admire the poetic symmetry of this statement for a while
Why thank you.
>> Radical restructuring. Costly and could scare investors
> To hell with investors. They can get out and find real jobs.
Except that the investors own the company. And I work 12 hour days and
invest in companies. :-)
> GW's just a Mom-n-Pop boutique industry that got too big for its
> britches.
Well, I don't know that I agree. They looked pretty good in 2004.
> All of this FUD is merely their just comeuppance, long overdue.
> Radical restructuring? Just hand GW back to Priestly and Co.
> The Specialist crew could run it better from a trailer parked behind
> the Foundry.
Maybe so.
--Ty
Ty
news:OFryg.13022$2v....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> In any case, GW's profits are not excessive for manufacturing companies.
> They made a 10 percent net profit in 2004, which is hardly "gouging".
That should be 13 percent, not 10 percent, but the point is unchanged.
--Ty
donovan...@yahoo.com
Close enough for gobbo-ment work ;o)
alei...@stny.rr.com
> 4. Crappy Rules. Sorry, but I think that Warhammer and WH40K suck. With
> sufficient effort and hassle, they can be made playable (barely). But they
> have systemic problems that cannot be solved, only mitigated. And if I'm
> right, this could account for the reason sales are off. While collectors are
> a small part of the market, most people buy the miniatures to *play* with.
> If the game sucks, less playing will happen. And eventually, less sales.
Sorry for the thread-jack, but I have a burning curiosity. What is it
that makes you feel that the 40K/WFB rules suck? What system do you
think is better?
Thanks.
ADR
Ty wrote:
> Manufactured products usually get
> cheaper as production volume increases. So, all else being equal, more
> profit is earned if more manufactured goods are produced in a given period.
I think GW has already taken this to heart. ;)
GW Exec: Supply has gone up. Demand has gone down.
Joe Blow: Why?
GW Exec: We make more. We charge more for it.
donovan...@yahoo.com
If it's Ty (Beard) from RGMH the answer will be "Fistfull of Bolters"
or something ;o)
As for the games, with 40K being the sci-fi exception, the basic rules
used in WFB, WAB, WECW, and Mordheim have IMO led to the some of the
best and most well regulated games without an umpire/GM I've played.
When I mean best I refer to enjoyment, not that a unit with 13
waistcoat buttons gains a 0.01% better survivability vs. grapeshot than
a unit with only 12 waistcoat buttons. If the various Warhammer systems
have any glaring flaws, it's usually a problem with the army
books/codices (goofy special rules, points costing, "codex escalation"
etc). So far I see WFB V6 and WH40K V4 as the pinnacles of their
respective systems (notice how the RTC dried up after WH40K came out).
I've had quite a few discussions with Seamus regarding his wanting to
create his own wargame, and we frequently hit upon the point of scope
in a wargame (i.e. how much does the individual count). I try to be
objective, but as far as a multitude of scope, the basic Warhammer
"multiverse" rules do a damn fine job of reflecting a multitude of
different aspects of the individual
(training/weapons/armor/morale/etc.), while still being simple enough
to play huge engagements.
And looking to the results Ty pointed out, one would assume that since
the fall took place in the 2004 frame, when no major rule changes
occurred that the rules aren't to blame, but the prices and probably
more importantly, practices. They (GW) knocked off the US online
retailers sometime in 2003, and 03/04 was when my FLGSs started to go
to shit GW-wise (I know that relationship has been screwy for years).
Also, I believe the people for Warmachine were just getting their
production capacity up to level at the time, and started bringing their
stuff out all over in sufficient quantities. IIRC Warmachine came out
in 2002? and they had trouble keeping FLGSs and online retailers
stocked.
Flames of War really started picking up with the non-historical gamer
crowd not long after...how long that will last without Orcs in Tiger
tanks showing up I don't know, as well as the competing in an already
flooded 15mm WW2 games/miniatures market. I don't doubt they'll be
around for a long time, but I see the rules and minis going in the
discount bins at the FLGS and becoming online and specialty store* only
in the next 5 years unless they pull something out of their ass.
*Stores like Game Parlor in NoVa that have a high concentration of
miniatures gamers and can justify having tons of historical minis
hanging on the wall.
Going back to the FLGSs that are struggling, the GW guy who wrote the
original statement makes a good point.
Many of those stores that are struggling aren't run as a business but a
lifestyle. Why should I support a store that can't support itself? I
went through 8 years of formal schooling (and continuing) and I still
work hard everyday for my money, why should some dude with a ponytail,
a small biz loan, and an underwater basketweaving degree need my pity
so he can make money?
Sorry guys, you provide me a service and/or product and you get my
money. Unless I can start getting my gaming purchases written off as
charity (feckin' aye, that'd be nice) I'm not going to burn gas to get
to your little hole chock full of little CCG/Clix punks screaming
obscenities so I can pay full MSRP for my fix as you either
A: fail to look me in the eyes or thank me for my custom and act like a
stereotypical antisocial/antihygiene gamer, or
B: Proceed to tell me how great CCGs are and that you got the awesomest
+4 Loxodon Birthday Card of Manna from your grandma regardless of my
increasingly blatant cries of "I don't care, shut up or eat a breath
mint!"
Andy O'Neill
news:1154153162....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
here's why.
Both are IgoUgo.
Both are sort of skirmish.
WFB is a very odd mix of skirmish and battle, but let's not get into that at
the moment.
In other skirmish games, IgoUgo went out in the 1980s.
Randomising via cards or alternate unit activation is where it's at.
Range guessing, double move for charging, everyone on one side attacks
first, template weapons these are all mechanics that other games have moved
on from due to various problems or general messiness.
Where templates are used it is for things like artillery on elements which
are likely discrete and spaced out enough that the question of is that base
in or out or on the edge is minimised.
There is little to no command contol model, no friction and whether units
can cimmunicate or not is irrelevent. Commanders can always direct their
troops. Even right past the face of an enemy unit as it stands there
motionless.
Other rules stop units moving across the face of enemy units since they
could obviously step up and engage.
Other rules make shooters target the nearest and most obvious unit rather
than allowing them to shoot at anything they can see regardless of how
little of it they can see past another obvious and more immediate target.
Oppotunity fire is another thing missing.
I could go on.
I think the alternate rulesets are clearer with 40k since it's a worse game.
Any 40k playe should be looking at stargrunt 2 by ground zero games.
Excellent system which is logical, well explained and even realistic.
Google for the stargrunt 2 webring.
My site is on it because I use the rules as a basis for sg2 ww2.
Your squads do just what you want them to, until they come under fire. Then
you better think about covered approaches, command control, mutual support
and lay some suppressive fire down to cover an advance.
The sort of things that the real military do.
Reality being far easier to understand than some weak justification why
things are different in the far future and super giuns only shoot 24 feet.
Alternatives are somewhat less clearer with WFB since a lot of fantasy games
designers decided to jump on the WFB band wagon. Or were pushed out of
business, or are aimed at more usual sized battle or skirmish gaming.
It;s clear that the designer of armies of arcana saw WFB and decided he
could do something kinda similar but better. And he did.
Free is good and you can download fantasy warriors off the web.
Get the companion as well and take a look at how undead work.
Then join the yahoo group and you can discuss them with doug cowie ( ex
grenadier owner ) and Nick Lund ( designer ).
Hordes of the thing is a good fantasy game.
It's aimed at battles. So a unit is a single element on the table and it's
representing hundreds of orcs or goblins or whatever.
--
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm
or, for no javascript and a faster load...
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sitemap.htm
Ty
news:1154157115.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Heh. The problem is that there's more to making a profit than minimizing
production costs. In that scenario, GW would wind up with a huge surplus of
inventory that it can't sell at the higher prices. Inventory not only ties
up cash (production costs) but it costs money to store.
More likely is that GW will simply raise prices and scale manufacturing to
meet demand. While this prevents the buildup of excessive inventory, it will
increase the production costs per item since those items are made in smaller
quantities. This, of course, reduces the profit gained from increasing the
prices, which causes another price increase. And so on...
--Ty
Ty
news:1154164256.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> alei...@stny.rr.com wrote:
>> Ty wrote:
>> > 4. Crappy Rules. Sorry, but I think that Warhammer and WH40K suck. With
>> > sufficient effort and hassle, they can be made playable (barely). But
>> > they
>> > have systemic problems that cannot be solved, only mitigated. And if
>> > I'm
>> > right, this could account for the reason sales are off. While
>> > collectors are
>> > a small part of the market, most people buy the miniatures to *play*
>> > with.
>> > If the game sucks, less playing will happen. And eventually, less
>> > sales.
>>
>> Sorry for the thread-jack, but I have a burning curiosity. What is it
>> that makes you feel that the 40K/WFB rules suck? What system do you
>> think is better?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> If it's Ty (Beard) from RGMH the answer will be "Fistfull of Bolters"
> or something ;o)
Actually "A Fistful of Bolters" ("FFB"). :-) Only one "l".
Yes, tis me. And yes, I am working on a set of rules that will address the
problems that I believe exist. My local game store is seeing a huge decline
in WH40K (and WH) sales because the players simply aren't having fun with
the game. My unbridled arrogance led me to offer to write him a set of free
rules that he can give to gamers that will be fun to play.
I am short of time, so I can't go into details, but here are the goals:
1. A system that can be played *fast*. My goal is for a 6 turn game to last
2 hours.
2. A system that can accomodate *big* battles, while adhering to the time
lengths above. First, I like big battles. Second, big battles sell more
figures.
3. A system that will require the use of the existing WH40K army books.
(After all, the goal is to sell more product).
4. The ratings in FFB are derived from the WH40K ratings and the rules give
the formulas. Thus, future expansion material will be easy to integrate.
5. Real world tactics -- overwatch and pinning fire.
More later. This game uses the engine of "A Fistful of Dragons", my long
threatened modern skirmish rules. If there's an interest, I'll post here
when the first draft is ready.
--Ty
donovan...@yahoo.com
Ty wrote:
> <donovan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1154164256.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > alei...@stny.rr.com wrote:
> >> Ty wrote:
>
> >> > 4. Crappy Rules. Sorry, but I think that Warhammer and WH40K suck. With
> >> > sufficient effort and hassle, they can be made playable (barely). But
> >> > they
> >> > have systemic problems that cannot be solved, only mitigated. And if
> >> > I'm
> >> > right, this could account for the reason sales are off. While
> >> > collectors are
> >> > a small part of the market, most people buy the miniatures to *play*
> >> > with.
> >> > If the game sucks, less playing will happen. And eventually, less
> >> > sales.
> >>
> >> Sorry for the thread-jack, but I have a burning curiosity. What is it
> >> that makes you feel that the 40K/WFB rules suck? What system do you
> >> think is better?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >
> > If it's Ty (Beard) from RGMH the answer will be "Fistfull of Bolters"
> > or something ;o)
>
> Actually "A Fistful of Bolters" ("FFB"). :-) Only one "l".
Damn I'm good (except at the spelling lol)
> Yes, tis me. And yes, I am working on a set of rules that will address the
> problems that I believe exist. My local game store is seeing a huge decline
> in WH40K (and WH) sales because the players simply aren't having fun with
> the game. My unbridled arrogance led me to offer to write him a set of free
> rules that he can give to gamers that will be fun to play.
>
> I am short of time, so I can't go into details, but here are the goals:
>
> 1. A system that can be played *fast*. My goal is for a 6 turn game to last
> 2 hours.
>
> 2. A system that can accomodate *big* battles, while adhering to the time
> lengths above. First, I like big battles. Second, big battles sell more
> figures.
>
> 3. A system that will require the use of the existing WH40K army books.
> (After all, the goal is to sell more product).
>
> 4. The ratings in FFB are derived from the WH40K ratings and the rules give
> the formulas. Thus, future expansion material will be easy to integrate.
>
> 5. Real world tactics -- overwatch and pinning fire.
>
> More later. This game uses the engine of "A Fistful of Dragons", my long
> threatened modern skirmish rules. If there's an interest, I'll post here
> when the first draft is ready.
It's been a long time since I looked at your rulesets, and I've never
played them, but if you can come up with something that hits all those
points I say go for it. Just like any ruleset I like to see what other
people are thinking, and maybe steal an idea here and there to change
another ruleset. Also, free is good. FREE GOOD, FIRE BAD.
Ty
news:DVHyg.32245
> <alei...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
>> Ty wrote:
>>> 4. Crappy Rules. Sorry, but I think that Warhammer and WH40K suck. With
>>> sufficient effort and hassle, they can be made playable (barely). But
>>> they
>>> have systemic problems that cannot be solved, only mitigated. And if I'm
>>> right, this could account for the reason sales are off. While collectors
>>> are
>>> a small part of the market, most people buy the miniatures to *play*
>>> with.
>>> If the game sucks, less playing will happen. And eventually, less sales.
>> Sorry for the thread-jack, but I have a burning curiosity. What is it
>> that makes you feel that the 40K/WFB rules suck? What system do you
>> think is better?
> No doubt Ty will respond with his own answer, but I think they're crap so
> here's why.
I share many of your criticisms, so I'll comment on your critiques and
expand with my own.
> Both are IgoUgo.
I assume this term means "player 1 moves, fires, etc. with his army, then
player 2 does likewise". I don't have a problem with this, in and of itself.
All of my rules are designed with some variant of this engine, for what I
consider to be very good reasons, which I list below.
> Both are sort of skirmish.
This is one of the systemic problems IMHO, with the WH system. The rules
began as a nice, playable set of *skirmish* rules. But they evolved into
rules for much larger battles -- and the evolution is not pretty. I find
that the rules are simply incapable of resolving large fights in a
reasonable time, particularly if the players are novices.
> WFB is a very odd mix of skirmish and battle, but let's not get into that
> at the moment.
That doesn't bother me so much -- maybe because I enjoyed colonial games,
which tended to be that way as well.
> In other skirmish games, IgoUgo went out in the 1980s.
See below for my disagreement on this point.
> Randomising via cards or alternate unit activation is where it's at.
I disagree -- strongly. See below.
> Range guessing, double move for charging, everyone on one side attacks
> first, template weapons these are all mechanics that other games have
> moved on from due to various problems or general messiness.
I disagree with most of this. See below.
> Where templates are used it is for things like artillery on elements which
> are likely discrete and spaced out enough that the question of is that
> base in or out or on the edge is minimised.
Yeah. The templates are sign of sloppy game design. See below.
> There is little to no command contol model, no friction and whether units
> can cimmunicate or not is irrelevent. Commanders can always direct their
> troops. Even right past the face of an enemy unit as it stands there
> motionless.
See below.
> Other rules stop units moving across the face of enemy units since they
> could obviously step up and engage.
Agreed that rules should mitigate the Panzerbush syndrome. And that the WH
rules do a spectacularly poor job of doing so.
> Other rules make shooters target the nearest and most obvious unit rather
> than allowing them to shoot at anything they can see regardless of how
> little of it they can see past another obvious and more immediate target.
Agree to some extent, but see below for my thoughts on target priority.
> Oppotunity fire is another thing missing.
Very much agree. However, overwatch fire (my term) should be integrated in
such a way that players are not encouraged to waste time.
> I could go on.
> I think the alternate rulesets are clearer with 40k since it's a worse
> game.
> Any 40k playe should be looking at stargrunt 2 by ground zero games.
I disagree. I know Jhn Tuffley and he's a great guy and a great designer.
However, I think that Stargrunt would not satisfy me if I wanted to play
WH40K style gaming. It is an excellent set of rules, but it is not to my
taste. I don't want to get into a referendum on Stargrunt, however. I just
offer a contra opinion. But make no mistake...I think it's a good game. Just
not what I want to play with 40K stuff.
> Hordes of the thing is a good fantasy game.
Like DBA and DBM, it's way too dry and bland in my opinion. For my idea of
what such a game should look like, see my Orc's Drift rules -- the mass
combat rules, not the skirmish rules. Orc's Drift skirmish is my take on
what a fantasy-colonial skirmish game ought to look like.
Okay, so here we go on why I think the WH rules suck. Before I get started,
I want to disclose my game design philosophy -- which you can see in action
with my modern rules "A Fistful of TOWs 2". But I've been gaming for 27
years, and I do have a set of commercial rules (reflecting this
philosophy)which have been well-received. So while I'm not a game designer,
I play one on TV. :-) And since I design games that I want to play, you'll
enjoy my games to the extent that our tastes agree.
One other comment -- like most philosophies, these are just my opinions. I
could be wrong (in the case of factual assertions), or our tastes may be
different. Please read every sentence as if it begins with "in my humble
opinion..." My strident tone is just how I write. And there are no objective
standards for taste. Some folks like broccoli, while some prefer Salzman.
And I enjoy Glen Campbell's music -- so obviously I have no standing to
criticize the taste of others.
Anyhow, here are the goals that I had for FFT and that I now have for FFB
("A Fistful of Bolters"):
1. The game must be fast moving and playable in a reasonable amount of time.
2 hours per average sized game is my target. And that time frame should be
attainable by novices.
2. The game must be easily playable by groups of players. I play mostly in
my game club, so games with 2-4 people on a side are common.
3. The game must allow players to easily implement real world tactics that
would be viable in the 40k universe.
4. The game must be simple and intuitive enough that novices can not only be
taught to play in 10 minutes, but that they can intuit and implement
effective tactics by simply thinking about the rules.
5. The game must accomodate truly gigantic battles, with little loss in time
and energy.
6. The game must be "textured" enough to satisfy gamers. There must be (for
instance) a distinction in game terms between a Bloodthirster and an Avatar.
They can't be genericized as "big critters" or somesuch.
7. Detail will be in the data (and therefore on the roster), not in the
rules. The rules will not be riddled with exceptions to the normal rules.
8. The game will not make a fetish out of frustrating the players. I get
plenty of frustration in the real world; I damn sure don't want to emphasize
it in my hobby.
9. Players will spend most of their time doing the stuff that's fun --
fighting and moving. Time will not be wasted on things that have little
actual effect on the battle.
10. Troops will have game abilities that match their descriptions. Close
combat troops will generally be dominant in close combat.
11. The rules will not provide incentives for players to waste time.
12. The rules will encourage movement *and* firing. I have no desire to play
a sci-fi version of WWI.
Okay, these are my goals.
My core design philosophy postulates that there is a certain amount of
energy that each player has available in each given time period. Every
single thing that you *do* in a game expends some of that energy. If the
energy expenditure exceeds the rate at which it is replenished, the game
ceases to be fun. This means that game mechanics exist in a zero-sum
environment. Every mechanic drains energy and it should be incumbent on the
designer to (a) streamline mechanics where possible and appropriate; and (b)
ensure that the player spend most of their time doing fun stuff. See, fun
stuff costs less energy :-) I generally use the terms "time" and "energy"
interchangeably.
So, if my game must be playable in 2 hours, then each of the 6 turns can
only take about 20 minutes. All rules must be evaluated through that prism.
And it's important to note that I assume that the troops will generally
behave in the most reasonable manner -- considering their situation and what
they are likely to know. This is important because it will explain some of
my rules.
Thus, I do not care for overly fussy game systems. The challenge of course,
is to resist the "one more rule" temptation, which can lead to Accidentally
Fussy Games. That's where having someone like my good friend Paul Minson
comes in handy. He has, over the years, talked me out of numerous "one more
rule" changes and has done more than anyone to keep FFT2 clean. Indeed, I
wonder if he doesn't understand my game design philosophy better than I do.
But I digress.
But for way too long, wargamers have tended to associate more rules with
more realism. The first result was the archetypal unspeakably tedious and
unplayable game. This lasted until the late 1980s. Then, a visceral reaction
to complexity unfortunately spawned many games that were *too* simple and
bland for my taste. There was also an offshoot of games that were
theoretically simple, but had unintuitive and highly randomized (and often
overly fussy) mechanics. These are the kind of rules that Andy seems to
extoll.
I have several problems with "asymetrical" games -- games that use cards to
activate or Crossfire like variable turn lengths, etc.
1. They are painfully nonintuitive. Sorry, but my experience has been that
such games make planning impossible. Crossfire, for instance, ends a
player's turn when he makes an attack that fails. "Don't shoot with that
unit; it might end our turn..." Absurd.
2. It is nearly impossible to implement basic real world tactics like
pinning with fire while another element moves to assault. They often render
novices unable to do anything but "make it up as they go along".
3. Some truly bizarre things can happen. I recall a Crossfire game in which
I pinned an enemy unit in the open. On his next turn, I wanted to shoot the
unit again with overwatch fire. I couldn't do so unless the stand moved.
"Don't move out in this open field or they'll shoot us..." (I'm not beating
up on Crossfire -- it is in many ways a good game -- it's just the last such
game I played).
4. These games reward luck, far more than skill. (I am uninterested in the
absurd argument that skill somehow equates to managin luck.) For instance,
the Avalon Hill game Firepower had a chit activation system. Squads
activated when their chit was drawn. The problem was that if I drew most of
my chits first, I'd wipe most of your army out, making your chits worthless.
We quit playing this game after a rash of such games. All games have some
luck (other than chess). But...luck has a greater influence in some designs
and skill in others. I see it as a continuum --Chess (100% skill) on one end
and "heads or tails" (100% luck) on the other. I think these games are
unacceptably closer to heads or tails. If I beat my opponent, I want it to
be because I outplayed him, not because I drew cards better. And if he beats
me, I don want him cheated out of the satisfaction because he got extremely
lucky. Yes, some games played by my rules are gonna be swung by luck. But a
far smaller percentage than with games like Crossfire or Piquet. The key, in
my mind, is to avoid rules that allow luck to determine the outcome of a few
really important things. Such as how many activations you get or when your
turn ends. My games mostly randomize combat. Since a lot of individual shots
will be taken, luck (good or bad) will usually be minimized. Anyhow, some
enjoy games where luck is more important than skill...I don't.
5. These games are nearly unplayable by multiple players on a side. They
invariably result in one player doing stuff while the other five players
stand around being bored. Since I like multiple player games, I'd avoid
these games for this reason alone.
6. Most such games take too long when large forces are involved.
Now, on to my rant on player frustration. For some unfathomable reason, game
designers have made something of a fetish of frustrating players.
Restrictive command and control mechanics (which are often themselves
absurdly unrealistic), "activation rolls", "troops go outside the player's
control at the drop of a hat" rules, "troops forced to do something patently
absurd" rules, etc. I *hate* such rules. Nor do I think they show much
design ability. Anyone can make rules. I think that the skill is in knowing
when to *avoid* making rules.
My rules try to transparently integrate command and control and other limits
so that the players can get on with the fun stuff -- moving and shooting.
For instance, in FFT2, there are no command stands. Yet the profound
difference in C&C abilities between Western armies and Soviet/Third World
armies is modelled. Basically, Western armies maneuver in 3-5 stand
companies while Soviet armies maneuver in 10-20 stand battalions. This shows
the bottom line difference between the two armies -- the Western army is
much more flexible on the battlefield. Cohesion rules require all stands of
a unit (company or battalion) to be close together when they move, so a unit
acts in concert. Stands *can* move out of cohesion. But they suffer a modest
penalty and must move to rejoin their unit if they move. This system is
supported by the troop quality rules. Troop quality affects *everything* in
FFT. And since better troops invariably have better command and control
systems, this provides a reasonable result. A clean, elegant and workable
result. Best of all, it avoids a fiddly command system.
Target priority is an area where many designers seem to enjoy tormenting
players. Yes, there must be some kind of priority rules. And WH40K has them,
despite Andy's assertion above. The problem is that they suck -- like most
such rules do. For example, a WH40K unit must fire at another WH40K unit.
That's idiotic. My troops don't give a tinker's dam how your troops are
organized.
Here are the target priority rules in FFT2 (and in FFB):
Subject to the exceptions below, each figure must shoot at the nearest enemy
stand. Exceptions:
You can ignore enemy figures that have already been shot at this phase.
You can ignore enemy figures in cover in favor of enemy troops in the open.
You can ignore infantry to shoot at vehicles (or monsters) or vice versa.
This minimizes much of the silliness I find in many other games. And it's
simple, reasonable and provides reasonable results.
I also ruthlessly abstract rules concerning things that usually have little
actual effect on the game. Such as painfully fussy and time-consuming rules
concerning stands that are broken and routing from the field. In my rules,
these stands are simply removed when they fail a morale check. Of course,
they aren't necessarily dead. But they are out of the current fight. And
THAT'S ALL I CARE ABOUT as commander of the army. In most games, broken
stands exert little affect on the outcome of the game. But the hassle of
fooling with them consumes a grossly disproportionate amount of time and
energy. My rules are *optimized* for the most common situations. I do not
waste player time on unimportant stuff.
Another example of optimization -- FFB's combat system assumes that the
target is in cover. In most games, that's where infantry *should* be. So no
modifer to kill them. Rather, a bonus when shooting targets in the open.
My rules also accept the fact that you can only model so many things and
still have a fast moving game. In my opinion, combat is the most important
part of a game. They're called *war*games, not *command and control*games.
So combat gets the most detailed treatment. Everything else is more
abstracted. In FFT2, a few folks complain that the airstrike system is too
abstract. In essence, airstrikes are treated as special types of artillery.
Now, the mechanism to deliver bombs is totally different than the mechanism
to deliver artillery shells. But the *effects* are the same. In addition,
the battlefield commander considers air support as just another form of fire
support -- i.e., artillery. So treating airstrikes as special artillery
produces appropriate results -- and avoids a whole section of specialized
mechanics. Most importantly, the player is playing a battalion or brigade
commander. Such commanders do *not* concern themselves with how the
airstrike are delivered. He merely orders that they be delivered and hopes
that the will be delivered. And since the player is not playing an airstrike
game (see Avalon Hill's TacAir for that), I see no reason for overly fussy
rules to handle a comparitively unimportant part of the battle. Particularly
when appropriate *results* can be attained by faster and simpler rules.
A word about movement. My rules encourage movement because I think that
mobile battles are the most fun. More accurately, my rules do not overly
penalize movement. When a player has to choose between shooting or moving
6", he will probably choose to stand still and shoot. Especially in a game
with few turns. The typical WH40K game only has 6 turns. So a player faced
with a move or shoot delimma will lose 1/6 of his firepower if he moves. The
result is World War I. Punishing movement has other pernicious effects,
especially when the movement rates are relatively low. Players are not
rewarded for maintaining reserves, since the reserves will usually take too
long to get into the fight. Also, low movement rates reward shooting over
melee because it takes longer to get to the shooters. Not a problem if the
melee guys are sufficiently nasty. But a problem in WH40K because the close
combat rules are utterly broken.
WH40K offends on this point in several ways. 6" of movement is too low, if
only because that means that you can only move 36" in a typical game -- and
that's if you move every turn. There's also the utterly stupid rule that
prohibits heavy weapons from being fired if *any* figure in the squad moves.
This means that squads must sit still or lose most of their heavy weapons.
Idiotic. And good lord...that...that...unspeakably asinine terrain rule --
roll d6 to see how far you move. And if you don't roll enough to enter the
terrain, well, you didn't enter it. Aaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhh. The designer
should be keel hauled for this stupidity alone.
My games handle movement thusly. First, I have the most common stands able
to move about 1/2 the range of the common weapons. In WH40K, this would be
about a 10-12" movement allowance. I have experimented with having units
roll dice for movement (*after* indicating their intended movement path),
and it works okay (see my Orc's Drift Skirmish rules). I don't use it any
more because I don't think that the time expenditure is worth it. Second, I
have a form of "strategic movement" which allows units to move 2-3 times as
far, subject to severe combat restrictions. They can't move within 12" of
enemy stands, they can't shoot or initiate close combat and they are easier
to shoot at. But this allows players to keep reserves and get them into the
fray. It also makes for fluid games. Terrain simply costs twice (or thrice)
as much to move through. And most terrain does not slow infantry down. There
are two reasons for this. Real world infantry could move far faster than
their average speed on the battlefield. What slows them down is usually
*not* the difficulty of the ground, but caution. See they don't know where
the bad guys are, so they are more careful. They don't usually move much
slower in woods than in fields -- unless they are running across the field
to avoid being shot at. So I think that it is reasonable to allow infantry
to move unimpeded through light woods, towns, etc. But the most important
reason is that rules that slow infantry down is yet another incentive to
just stand still. This results in a less entertaining game to me.
There is, however, one problem with more movement in a game. Poorly written
rules will allow players to exploit the sequence of play and take advantage
of tactics that are absurd in the real world. This is called "Panzerbushing"
from the old board game Panzer Leader. Stands could move from cover to cover
in their turn and not be shot at while in the open. In other games --
including most "asymetrical" games -- stands can move from the front of a
tank to the flank. This is the dreaded "tankbush". This is a huge problem in
modern games where the M1A2 has 600+mm of armor on the front, but only
100mm- on the sides. A more subtle problem is the "turnbush". Stands A and B
are in cover and there is open ground between them. They are blocked by the
cover from seeing each other. A moves into the open, but cannot fire at B,
since B is not visible. So A cannot make an overwatch attack. On B's turn, B
moves into the open. B then shoots the hapless A who can't fire back. Most
rules -- including mine -- allow a stand to make an overwatch attack only if
stand doesn't move. So A cannot make an overwatch attack.
So, a well designed game must mitigate these problems. 40K does not do so,
except in the sense that it encourages very limited movement. Here are the
fixes you'll find in FFT2 and FFB:
1. Overwatch Fire. Stands can take an overwatch marker if they don't move or
shoot. This stops panzerbushing and some turnbushing.
2. Hold Fire. A stand that moves, but is eligible to fire may hold fire.
That means that the stand will fire in the enemy fire phase. The fire is
simultaneous, so the effects are assessed after all shooting. In my example
above, A& B will shoot simultaneously at each other -- the probable result
in the real world where both were really moving at the same time.
3. Pivot. After enemy movement phase, friendly stands may turn to face any
enemy stand that moved from the friendly stand's front arc into the friendly
stand's flank arc. This can be done only once, so a vehicle *can* be flanked
by 2 enemy stands that move on either side. But this will prohibit the
"tankbush" described above.
Now, as to combat. I think combat should be fast and decisive (i.e.,
relatively bloody). Especially in games with only 6 turns. WH40K deeply
offends my sensibilities on this point. The problem is that stuff just
doesn't die quick enough. For instance -- assume two space marines (the most
common troops in the game as they come with every basic set) shooting at
each other at <12" range with bolters. The chance of killing the other is --
chance of hitting (2/3) x chance of wounding (1/2) x chance of missing armor
save (1/3) = 2/18 or 1/9. With 2 shots, the chance of a kill is 1 - ((chance
of no kill on 1st shot [8/9]) x (chance of no kill on 2nd shot [8/9]) =
64/72 or 21%. This means that it will take an average of 4-5 turns for
someone to die. Gack.
The lack of lethality has pernicious -- and fatal -- effects on close
combat. It makes initiative nearly irrelevant. Consider a fight between 2
normal space marines. Chance of kill per strike is (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3) = 1/12.
If one has higher initiative -- the highest possible -- it will help him
only one time in twelve. Statistically, he will win about 53% of the time.
Hardly worth having such rules. Low lethality would also tend to make close
combats go on for several (many?) turns. In our example, somebody will die
in about 5-6 turns on the average. In a six turn game, this can only be
described as "sucking".
Bottom line -- in my games, combat will be intuitive, fast, and decisive.
Close combats will rarely last more than one turn.
Speaking of close combat, let's talk about how WH40K is utterly broken. Most
close combat troops are statistically inferior to basic Space Marines, even
if tricked out. The reason is that the designer of the latest version of 40K
failed to consider the effect of his new armor save system on close combat.
Here's the math. My books aren't handy so I may be a little off. Assume an
alien close combat troop (WS4, S3, T3, Sv5+) vs a normal Space Marine (WS4
S4 T4 Sv3+). The alien gets 2 attacks and will go first. Both get their
armor saves. The alien will kill the space marine (1/2 x 1/3 x 1/3 =) 1/18
of the time per attack. Statistically, an 11% chance with 2 attacks. The
space marine will kill the alien (1/2 x 2/3 x 2/3 =) 4/18 of the time per
attack, or 22% of the time. One time in 10, the alien will kill the space
marine with the first attack. But statistically, the space marine will win 6
times out of ten. In other words, the *normal* space marine is worth 1.5
times as the alien close combat specialist.
The math suggests that the most important variable in close combat is the
armor save. So even normal, well armored troops should generally beat
lightly armored close combat troops. It must suck to be lightly armored
close combat armies... The best way to address this would be to ignore armor
in close combat. In that case, the alien would be more capable -- she'd hit
about 1/3 of the time, so her initiative advantage would be decisive in 1/3
of the fights. She'd win 66% of the battles. So I predict that power weapons
will become widely available to all troops. But why not just disregard armor
in close combat?
And of course, the low lethality will tend to drag close combats out. It
will take an average of 3 turns for someone to die in the alien vs space
marine example. Half the game...phew.
And then there's the general mass of fussy bullshit in WH40K. My head will
explode if I go into two much detail, but here are some of the other
bowsers:
1. A completely ill-conceived, tedious, boring and fussy shooting system. GW
has been obsessed with making players fire by squads -- a formidable task
when individual stands vary in weapons, armor and toughness. The only way to
do this effectively is to give the squad a composite firepower rating
determined by adding its components. Even then, there's the problem of what
happens when half the squad can see only one enemy group and the other half
of the squad can only see another enemy group. Or when half the squad can
only see one enemy figure, but the other half of the squad can see lots of
enemy figures. Etc., etc. Instead of ditching this bizarre and quixotic
obsession, GW provided a cumbersome and worthless system to accomplish a
dubious result. I'm a tax lawyer. I deal with the US Internal Revenue Code
every day. Yet I have trouble trying to allocate hits, wounds and armor
saves when firing at mixed squads. And at the end, I see absolutely no
benefit in it. Burn the designer at the stake, I say. Don't get me started
(again) on the patent absurdity of requiring my squad to shoot at a single
enemy squad. Or my heavy weapons guys not being able to fire if *anyone* in
the squad moves. Oh, the humanity.
2. A fussy system for resolving broken units that has little effect on most
games...but does waste time.
Etc., etc., etc.
<deep breath>
"A Fistful of Bolters" will address these problems. If you agree with me
that they are problems, then you'll like FFB. If you disagree, then you'll
want to stay with WH40K. To summarize:
1. FFB will be able to be played *fast*. My goal is for a 6 turn game to
last 2 hours.
2. FFB will be able to accomodate *big* battles, while adhering to the time
lengths above. First, I like big battles. Second, big battles sell more
figures.
3. FFB will require the use of the existing WH40K army books. (After all,
the goal is to sell more product).
4. The ratings in FFB are derived from the WH40K ratings and the rules give
the formulas. Thus, future expansion material will be easy to integrate.
5. FFB will allow real world tactics -- overwatch and pinning fire for
example.
6. FFB will have a point system that actually works. And I'll disclose the
formula so that you can change ratings that you disagree with.
7. Fast, deadly and decisive combat, huzzah!
8. Close combat troops will be deadly in close combat. Of course, the system
giveth and the system taketh away. They'll have to deal with overwatch. The
good news is that combined arms tactics will be very useful. For instance --
shooters pin the enemy troops and the close assault guys rush in to finish
them off. This tactic works in FFB and in the real world.
9. Far better close combat rules.
Oh yeah, it will be free. I have no interest in tangling with GW's legal
counsel. Plus the goal is to help my local game store stay in business and
sell figures, not compete with GW.
--Ty
Ty
> Ty wrote:
>> Actually "A Fistful of Bolters" ("FFB"). :-) Only one "l".
> Damn I'm good (except at the spelling lol)
You're even better than you think. I wracked my brain for a Clint
Eastwood-esque title and failed. As you may know, almost all of my rules
have Clint Eastwood titles -- "Fistful of TOWs", "High Seas Drifter" (WWII
naval), "A Fistful of Sardaukar", "For A Few TOWs More", please make me
stop...
Somehow, "The Tyrannids of Madison County" was unsatisfactory. So I have
callously appropriated your title. Hope you don't mind.
<snip of list>
>> More later. This game uses the engine of "A Fistful of Dragons", my long
>> threatened modern skirmish rules. If there's an interest, I'll post here
>> when the first draft is ready.
> It's been a long time since I looked at your rulesets, and I've never
> played them, but if you can come up with something that hits all those
> points I say go for it. Just like any ruleset I like to see what other
> people are thinking, and maybe steal an idea here and there to change
> another ruleset. Also, free is good. FREE GOOD, FIRE BAD.
FFB *will* hit those points or I won't release it. And the current draft
does so. And it will be free.
--Ty
Myrmidon
tybear...@sbcglobal.net says...
> <donovan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > Ty wrote:
>
> >> Actually "A Fistful of Bolters" ("FFB"). :-) Only one "l".
>
> > Damn I'm good (except at the spelling lol)
>
> You're even better than you think. I wracked my brain for a Clint
> Eastwood-esque title and failed. As you may know, almost all of my rules
> have Clint Eastwood titles -- "Fistful of TOWs", "High Seas Drifter" (WWII
> naval), "A Fistful of Sardaukar", "For A Few TOWs More", please make me
> stop...
>
> Somehow, "The Tyrannids of Madison County" was unsatisfactory. So I have
> callously appropriated your title. Hope you don't mind.
>
<insert sound of Tyranids everywhere sighing in disappointment...>
Let's see, there's...
The Good, The Bad, and The Bolter
(I can picture Bruce Campbell saying that one "Good, Bad, I've got the
Bolter...")
High Pains Bolter
Million Credit Bolter
Dirty! Hairy! Bolter!
Sudden Impact Bolter
Bronco Bolter
Magnum Force Bolter
Thunderbolter & Lightfoot
Where Bolters Dare
Paint Your Bolter
Hang'em Bolters High
Escape from Alca-bolter
True Bolter
Play Misty for me - OR GET RIDDLED BY BY BOLTER!~
And then there are the other 'Movies' of the Imperium...
'Every Which Way But Treason'
'The Inquisition Sanction'
'Unforgiven'
'In The Line of Fire'
'Absolute Power - Belongs to the Emperor'
'Pale Rider' (a.k.a. 'Here come the Heretics')
'Pink Cadillac & other Slannesh transports'
'Honkytonk Heretic'
Hope that helps,
Myrmidon
--
Yeah, I hate it when a worthless thread degenerates into a semi-useful
discussion. Never again!
- Smithdoerr
Jim M
tybear...@sbcglobal.net says...
> And I enjoy Glen Campbell's music -- so obviously I have no standing to
> criticize the taste of others.
>
>
head!
8^)
ADR
Ty wrote:
>10. Troops will have game abilities that match their descriptions. Close
>combat troops will generally be dominant in close combat.
The game I played last night as SM against Orks proves this is a fine
needle to thread. Ork's used a wartruck to get his 10 strong mob into
range. The mob then assaulted with 1 warboss with 5 weapon attacks
plus 9 orks with 2 weapon attacks each plus everyone got +1 weapon
attack for the assault and initiative with the waaaaagh power.
34 attacks already! If one in ten kills an SM then I've just lost 3 SM
so my 5 man squad is down to 2 with a 60% chance of killing two Orks I
still loose the battle almost 100% of the time.
Not that I don't think you have a good idea, just be sure and keep all
Armies not just SM in mind when creating your rules.
Ty
Agreed. I've used SM, Orks, Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Chaos to
calibrate the rules so far.
True, my examples were of plain vanilla basic combats. You have demonstrated
that one can add various advantages to force a lousy system to perform,
which is something I don't dispute. The current game can be suffered through
and can even yield reasonable results...sometimes.
My question is "why settle for a crappy game that can be forced to work okay
occasionally?" Even stipulating that making 102 melee rolls is somehow
"okay". I'd also note that the Space Marines will (in all likelihood) hang
around for another turn. 1/3 of the game taken up by that melee?
And indeed, your fix is exactly what GW's approach boils down to. Release a
lousy set of rules. Refuse to fix them (because they can't be fixed without
gutting the system). To get some semblance of playability, release numerous
supplements containing special exceptions to the rules. When the game is
finally so loaded down with crap (special rules), release a new edition that
is fundamentally defective in some other way.
<shrug>
I have better things to do than fight with a game that requires 102 die
rolls to resolve a melee between 2 smallish squads...
Perhaps you do as well?
The same fight in my system will take 15 rolls -- 10 Ork and 5 SM. No charts
required. And the melee will be *over* in one turn. If that appeals to you,
stay tuned.
--Ty
donovan...@yahoo.com
> > Not that I don't think you have a good idea, just be sure and keep all
> > Armies not just SM in mind when creating your rules.
>
> Agreed. I've used SM, Orks, Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and Chaos to
> calibrate the rules so far.
Also, keep in mind that two melee rounds are/can be fought every
complete turn.
Ty
> My question is "why settle for a crappy game that can be forced to work
> okay occasionally?" Even stipulating that making 102 melee rolls is
> somehow "okay".
I realized that I overestimated the number of rolls. The total number of
rolls is probably only about 60 or so. I think that my point is still valid,
though.
--Ty
donovan...@yahoo.com
> In article <S0Myg.59259$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
> tybear...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > <donovan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > Ty wrote:
> >
> > >> Actually "A Fistful of Bolters" ("FFB"). :-) Only one "l".
> >
> > > Damn I'm good (except at the spelling lol)
> >
> > You're even better than you think. I wracked my brain for a Clint
> > Eastwood-esque title and failed. As you may know, almost all of my rules
> > have Clint Eastwood titles -- "Fistful of TOWs", "High Seas Drifter" (WWII
> > naval), "A Fistful of Sardaukar", "For A Few TOWs More", please make me
> > stop...
Okay, I have one condition. Fistful of Bolters must include my name on
the credits, and the quote:
"See, my M.U.L.E.* don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea
you're laughing at him. Now, if you apologize, like I know you're going
to, I might just convince him you really didn't mean it."
(*Multiple Use Labor Element, quadrupedal servitor)
> The Good, The Bad, and The Bolter
Roll 'Em High
When you wound a man, you better be sure he didn't make his armor save
Two M.U.L.E.s for Sister Sororitas
> (I can picture Bruce Campbell saying that one "Good, Bad, I've got the
> Bolter...")
All right you squidgly alien slime heads, listen up. See this? THIS IS
MY BOOM-BOX! (holds up second edition bolter) It's a .75 caliber full
auto gyro-jet rifle. Emp-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in
the religious novelties department. That's right, this sweet baby was
made on the forge world of Gryphonne IV; retails for about one hundred
and nine Imperial Credits. It's got a Nal-nut stock, adamantium
housing, and a hair trigger. That's right, shop smart, shop Emp-mart!
Hail to the Emperor, Baby.
> Dirty! Hairy! Bolter!
Now I know you're asking yourself, did I fire 5 shots, or 6. Seeing as
this is the most powerful handgun in the galaxy, with a 30 round mag, I
got one question for you...do you recant? Well, do you punk?
(PS: Dirty? Hairy? Halflings DO NOT GET BOLTERS...EVAR!)
> Thunderbolter & Lightfoot
BJ & the Bolter, a story of a Rogue Trader and a Jokaero digital monkey
Starski and Hrud: An arbites officer and a mysteriously hooded and
bandage wrapped underhive guide fight crime in the hive.
"Don't be a Hive-turkey, watch this vid-cast!" Huggy-Bear
> Play Misty for me - OR GET RIDDLED BY MY BOLTER!~
ROTFLMAO
> And then there are the other 'Movies' of the Imperium...
>
> 'Every Which Way But Treason'
Originally scripted with a Rogue Trader and a Jokaero getting into
shennanigans, it was scrapped after BJ & the Bolter used the concept.
It was rewritted to be about a Dark Eldar pirate travelling the webway
and fighting in the arenas of Cormorragh with his sidekick/slave Clyde
the Monkeigh.
Right turn Clyde, you snivelling whelp! Must I flay your coarse
Mon-keigh flesh yet again with the neuro-whip?
The new title became "Every Which Way But LOS"
> 'The Inquisition Sanction'
"No one expected it!" Roger Ebert
"Two thumbs up, in an autorack" Arch-Heretic Commodius
> 'In The Line of Fire'
'In the Line Of Sight' & 'In the LOS 2: Targeting Priority'
> 'Pink Cadillac & other Slannesh transports'
Mary Kay cosmetics is the true bringer of the newest Chaos god?
> 'Honkytonk Heretic'
Rhinestone Groxboy
Brokeback Bolter: "I wish I could quit you Mephiston"
La Cage Aux Elfies: "Simply FABULOUS!"~Farseer An'aleiz
Andy O'Neill
of points I wish to make.
Most of the design criteria listed I apply.
Our games are usually somewhat longer so 2 hours limit is not on my list.
Still, one man's fussy is quite possibly another man's major factor so
clearly YMMV.
It's worth mentioning I apply a number of changes to sg2. Partly this is
because I mainly use it for ww2 and partly to address some of the fussiness.
Like vehicles. My players want a number of them and so Jon's rules are more
involved than we'd have the time for.
Alternate unit activations allow for a smoother game than i do everything
and then you do ( Igo Ugo ).
I recommed the approach.
It means that the time you spend waiting to so something is usually less.
So even if a player has a particularly short attention span then they can be
thinking what to do with their next activation.
Where I'm running a game with multiple players per side I encourage them to
play as a team rather than person A gets these couple of squads, person B
the tank.... etc.
There is also the suspense involved in the critical quality roll at the
start of the turn to decide which side gets to go first with a unit.
By saying that each activation can be considered to overlap the preceding
one you get around some issues inherent in overwatch/op fire mechanics. So
I change sg2 slightly so that a sqaud can shoot at a squad just moved out of
sight. However. The results are applied where the enemy squad is now. By
which I mean they get pinned out of sight rather than in sight. OPr you can
interrupt and potentially pin them in the middle of the road.
Random movement once under fire is perhaps a little frustraing.
Personally, I think it adds significantly though.
You can rely on your men trying to dash across the open ground.
You cannot rely on them making it before taking fire.
If they will be in sight of enemy then you need suppressive fire and you
need lots so that they can operate efficiently.
Leave enemy unsuppressed and your risks greatly increase.
These are real world military problems.
Crossfire, I'm not so sure about your description.
It sounds like you may have been doing something wrong in your game, but I'm
not 100% sure and not convinced it's worth exploring.
If you have initiative you can shoot at anything your units can see.
The shooter has a marginal advantage in retaining initiative so you should
always shoot if you can.
It's easier to hit enemy in the open so stopping in the open is a bad thing.
Players with military backgrounds describe Crossfire as being the one game
they've encountered where they have to think like they do in the real world.
That could of course be a bad thing for non-military types or in game terms.
People do either love or loathe the game, but 10 pounds is worth the risk.
In terms of shooting priorities I was rather thinking of WFB as opposed to
40k.
I think Jon Tuffleys definition entirely reasonable.
If shooting is sort of simultaneous.
How'd you know that a unit is under fire by friendlies and choose to shoot a
different one?
In moderns warfare shooting results in relatively few casualties.
Shooting not killing so many is reasonable.
You need suppressive effects though.
Close combat should include short range shooting and the loser should lose a
lot of casualties.
Seamus
Andy O'Neill wrote:
> Alternate unit activations allow for a smoother game than i do everything
> and then you do ( Igo Ugo ).
I wrote up alternate rules to Battletech based o Ralph Reeds' Mechforce
game for the Amiga.
The basic system I jotted down used a 10-phase movement chart for
simultaneous movement (sort of like Car Wars/SFB). Players declare fire
as they wish, as long as the unit has weapons available (i.e aren't
cycling or destroyed).
This ruleset plays out much like the Amiga game (or possibly Solaris
VII), and eliminates the IGo-UGo mechanic entirely.
In my head, I can't seem to justify using this system for an
army-vs.-army type of game (i.e. WFB) though, as it sounds like a
bloody nightmare to coordinate.
Ty
> Sorry for snipping the lot but it's too much to wade through for the
> length of points I wish to make.
> Most of the design criteria listed I apply.
> Our games are usually somewhat longer so 2 hours limit is not on my list.
> Still, one man's fussy is quite possibly another man's major factor so
> clearly YMMV.
True.
> It's worth mentioning I apply a number of changes to sg2. Partly this is
> because I mainly use it for ww2 and partly to address some of the
> fussiness. Like vehicles. My players want a number of them and so Jon's
> rules are more involved than we'd have the time for.
> Alternate unit activations allow for a smoother game than i do everything
> and then you do ( Igo Ugo ).
> I recommed the approach.
I do not, for 2 reasons. First, such systems are hard to make work with
multiple players on a side. This is an important factor to me since most of
my games are multiplayer. As I said before, one player does something and
the other fice stand around bored. The total time required is lengthened as
well, since players cannot "batch process" (i.e., move everything, then
shoot with everything, etc.). So I'd predict that such games would take much
longer than similar sized games with the traditional sequence of play.
Second, these systems make it very difficult -- especially for novices -- to
implement real world tactics that require coordination between multiple
units. Even something as simple as pinning the target while the close
assault troops move in -- a common infantry tactic -- is complex and must be
orchestrated over several moves. If it can be done at all.
I have designed some games with alternate activation and been frustrated by
this. They *are* easier to design, since the sequence of play doesn't have
to be particularly refined.
As an aside, these "cutting edge" systems have been around since at least
1980. SPI released Firefight in 1980, which featured alternate activation.
And of course, Battletech had it as well.
> It means that the time you spend waiting to so something is usually less.
Perhaps, but the total length of the game turn is significantly longer.
I am working on a design that aims to address these problems. Basically,
each player draws a hand from a deck of cards. At the start of the game,
each player gets one card per command unit (in WH40K, this would be the
squad) on the board. Better armies start with a few extra cards. Hand sizes
are limited to the number of units plus 2-4 cards depending on army quality.
When a unit is destroyed, the player must reduce the maximum size of his
hand by one. If necessary, he must discard cards to bring his hand in
compliance.
Use the novelty playing cards that are only about 1.5 inches tall.
At the start of each turn, players place a card beside every unit. Once all
cards are placed, they're flipped over. Units activate in the Poker order of
precedent -- Ace to 2; ties are resolved by suit - hearts (best) diamonds
clubs spades. So no ties.
Units may choose to hold their activation by reducing the number (but not
the suit) of their card. The unit will win a tie.
And the most important rule -- a side activates *all* of units that have
precedence -- at the same time. So, let's say that I play the following
cards: King, 10 6, 3. You play 9, 5 and 4. I will activate the King and 10
units together. You'll activate the 6. Then I'll activate the 5 and 4. Et
cetera.
This rule will make the game as time-efficient as possible, though it will
still be slower than a traditional game. Multiplayer games will work better,
since an entire side activates.
It will also require players to plan ahead. There's also a resource
allocation element...do I play the Ace or hold it for a critical time. I
analogize the cards as representing the amount of attention the commander
and his staff are expending on the unit, but whatever works. I also have the
idea of representing electronic warfare by letting players remove x cards
from the enemy hand (the cards are hidden, of course).
> So even if a player has a particularly short attention span then they can
> be thinking what to do with their next activation.
> Where I'm running a game with multiple players per side I encourage them
> to play as a team rather than person A gets these couple of squads, person
> B the tank.... etc.
I don't see how that helps. If the game requires that squads be activated
one at a time, one player will still be doing something while the rest
twiddle their thumbs.
> There is also the suspense involved in the critical quality roll at the
> start of the turn to decide which side gets to go first with a unit.
Of course, I have a deep hostility to randomizing the sequence of play
because this can profoundly swing a game as a matter of luck. But in a game
where units alternate one at a time, I don't see this as much of an issue.
> By saying that each activation can be considered to overlap the preceding
> one you get around some issues inherent in overwatch/op fire mechanics.
You can *say* what you want. But the fact remains that anything requiring
multiple unit coordination will be difficult. Even relatively simple and
common tactics. And as noted, I am hostile to games that go out of their way
to frustrate players. If real world forces can do something routinely, then
I want my armies to be able to do that as well.
> So I change sg2 slightly so that a sqaud can shoot at a squad just moved
> out of sight. However.
The way I've handled overwatch is to simply allow a stand that activates to
take an overwatch marker in lieu of moving or firing. At any time, that
stand can interrupt the enemy activation and take a shot.
> Random movement once under fire is perhaps a little frustraing.
> Personally, I think it adds significantly though.
I don't, because such rules can be devastating to players who are a bit
unlucky. I once designed a game with activation rolls -- roll to activate a
unit. Average quality units would activate 70% of the time and their
activation would deteriorate as casualties and damage mounted. Groups of
units could activate together, so that you could implement multi-unit
tactics.
In a playtest game, two evenly matched players were in a very tight game. As
often happens, the game came down to a critical maneuver by a key unit.
Player A successfully drew off his opponent's forces with a cleverly
conceived feint. This is critical -- he outplayed his opponent at a critical
time. The player made his roll -- 4+ on d10 needed. And he failed, losing
his chance to sieze the critical objective. His opponent made 1 of 2 rolls
(4+ required IIRC) and poured an adjacent unit into the fight. Ultimately,
he won the game.
That really stuck in my craw. The better player lost because he was unlucky
on a *single* die roll. And that is my problem with so many of these games.
Too much is typically dependent on a very few number of die rolls.
Yes, I know that war is unpredictable. But the problem is that randomizing
activation does not usually produce reasonable results for the simple reason
that both players know where everything is on the board. *No* commander in
the real world has such knowledge. So lucky players can optimize their good
fortune by making moves that real commanders would consider extremely risky
(due to lack of knowledge). But the lucky player's omniscience lets him know
ahead of time that such moves are completely safe.
I guess my point is that friction is caused by far more than troops being
unwilling to follow (or failing to understand) their orders. Time pressure
is a major factor, yet most wargamers are unwilling to put a tight time
limit on turns. Lack of knowledge about enemy dispostions is another, yet
few wargamers play double blind games regularly. Lack of knowledge of actual
battlefield capabilities is another major factor...but players know the game
ratings of their stands.
Given that these other factors cause far more friction than
inabilty/unwillingness to follow orders, I can't see any virtue in singling
the latter out for modeling on the battlefield.
> You can rely on your men trying to dash across the open ground.
> You cannot rely on them making it before taking fire.
> If they will be in sight of enemy then you need suppressive fire and you
> need lots so that they can operate efficiently.
> Leave enemy unsuppressed and your risks greatly increase.
> These are real world military problems.
But as noted, they are a very small factor. Why model *only* this factor?
> Crossfire, I'm not so sure about your description.
> It sounds like you may have been doing something wrong in your game, but
> I'm not 100% sure and not convinced it's worth exploring.
It isn't. The game sucks IMHO and I'm confident that the Crossfire religious
fanatics running the game knew the rules. I have no desire to get drawn into
a religious debate with Crossfire advocates.
> Players with military backgrounds describe Crossfire as being the one game
> they've encountered where they have to think like they do in the real
> world.
Well, the only player in our group with actual combat experience (Marines,
Vietnam 67-68) hated the game. He (and I) liked the movement system (or lack
thereof). I just thought that the sequence of play was poorly conceived. And
I felt that stuff should die far more often than it did.
I retrofitted the Crossfire movement system into a Fistful of TOWs game and
with a few minor tweaks, it played fine.
> That could of course be a bad thing for non-military types or in game
> terms.
<shrug> Our military type hated it.
> People do either love or loathe the game, but 10 pounds is worth the risk.
Definitely. It's a very clever design, even if it is deeply flawed. And its
movement system is about the only truly innovative thing I've seen in
wargaming in the last 20 years. Even purportedly "innovative" games like
Piquet are really nothing more than unusually large piles of mechanics that
have been around for decades.
> In terms of shooting priorities I was rather thinking of WFB as opposed to
> 40k.
I can't play WHFB. Life is just too short. I do like Lord of the Rings,
though. With some minor tweaks, it could be a great game.
> I think Jon Tuffleys definition entirely reasonable.
I haven't looked at SG in a long time, so I can't recall.
> If shooting is sort of simultaneous.
> How'd you know that a unit is under fire by friendlies and choose to shoot
> a different one?
Well, I --as a game designer -- would assume that the soldiers will shoot at
whatever they think their fire is best expended on. And therefore create
fire priority rules that allow this. However, it is rather cumbersome to
track who shot at what in a game. And do you track this by stand or by unit?
If by unit, what do you do if some stands are being shot at by one enemy
group and other stands by other enemy groups? And should an M1A1 Abrams MBT
be forced to ignore enemy T-80s merely because enemy infantry are currently
shooting at them with small arms?
> In moderns warfare shooting results in relatively few casualties.
> Shooting not killing so many is reasonable.
Agreed. However, you should be aware that my definition of a "kill" in game
terms is merely that the target is out of the current fight. So whether he's
dead, injured or fleeing in blind panic, the *effect* is the same -- he's
out of this fight. Since that's all I (as commander) care about, that's all
the definition I put in my game. If a campaign is being played, then why
they were out of the fight matters more. So rules handling that would appear
in the campaign game rules and would be resolved between battles. No reason
to weigh players down with crap that is irrelevant to the current fight.
And no reason to force players to go through numerous turns to shoot an
enemy soldier. I'd simply increase the time scale so that the desired
lethality can be justified. If (for instance) it takes 5 minutes sustained
fire on average to render an enemy soldier combat ineffective, I will not
make my turns represent 30 seconds. I will probably make them represent 3-4
minutes or somesuch, so that normal troops shooting at each other have a
decent chance of knocking each other out in a turn.
> You need suppressive effects though.
Something few games have. FFB will have them. Here's how it will work:
General Turn Sequence (omitting irrelevant phases)
1. Player A first fire phase. Units firing first cannot move or fire later
in the turn.
2. Player A move phase. Enemy stands can conduct overwatch fire before,
during or after movement. If done before or after movement, no modifier. Any
overwatch fire done while the enemy is moving is -1 (a moderate penalty).*
3. Player A fire phase.
4. Any of Player A's stands that did not move or fire (but were eligible to
do so) can take an overwatch marker.
5. Player B first fire phase. Units firing first cannot move or fire later
in the turn.
6. Player B move phase. Enemy stands can conduct overwatch fire before,
during or after movement. If done before or after movement, no modifier. Any
overwatch fire done while the enemy is moving is -1 (a moderate penalty).*
7. Player B fire phase.
8. Any of Player B's stands that did not move or fire (but were eligible to
do so) can take an overwatch marker.
A stand may make a pinning attack in lieu of a normal small arms attack. The
chance of a hit is quite a bit higher, but the target will not be killed if
hit. Rather, it loses any overwatch marker it has. (After playtesting, I may
expand this to include a move or fire penalty in the next turn).
So your shooters can attempt to pin or destroy enemy stands before the
assault troops go in. If the enemy stands are waiting on overwatch for the
assault troops, they risk losing their ability to do so. A nice little
tactical delimma...if enemy shooters are in range and in sight, do I shoot
them and expose myself to the fast, close combat troops? Or do I hold my
fire and risk being pinned by enemy fire?
Oh my gosh...combined arms tactics in 40K. What has the world come to?
Now note that this tactic is enabled by the interaction of the fire combat
rules and the design of the sequence of play. And the rules are very simple
and straightforward. Even novices can see how this works.
--Ty
Ty
news:1154269811....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Actually, it does work. My first real game design used an impulse movement
system (I loved Car Wars and Star Fleet Battles). It was a very interesting
experience. You definitely got a sense of the battle "developing" in real
time. Maybe not better, but interesting. Try it in a smallish mass combat
game with 10 or so units per side. I would not try it in a skirmish game -
too many stands to move.
--Ty
Peter Pradelski
>> Both are IgoUgo.
>
> I assume this term means "player 1 moves, fires, etc. with his army, then
> player 2 does likewise". I don't have a problem with this, in and of
> itself. All of my rules are designed with some variant of this engine, for
> what I consider to be very good reasons, which I list below.
It's easy to make a IgoUgo game bad, and hard to make it good (btw. You made
a fine job with FFOT2). More funny mechanisms for the sequence of play
exist.
We have a house rule for sequence of play for HotT. It uses the rolls done
for generating PIPs to determinate also the seqence of play:
1. every side rolls a D8. The side with the higher roll becomes player A
(the other one player B) and makes their moves with a PIP number of his D8
score minus the opponent's D8 score.
2. Player B rolls his D8, A's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.
3. Player A rolls his D8, B's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.
4. Goto 2.
Ty
news:4j40c7F...@individual.net...
> Ty wrote:
>>> Both are IgoUgo.
>> I assume this term means "player 1 moves, fires, etc. with his army, then
>> player 2 does likewise". I don't have a problem with this, in and of
>> itself. All of my rules are designed with some variant of this engine,
>> for
>> what I consider to be very good reasons, which I list below.
> It's easy to make a IgoUgo game bad, and hard to make it good (btw. You
> made
> a fine job with FFOT2). More funny mechanisms for the sequence of play
> exist.
Hi Peter.
That's a fair point...and thanks for the compliment. And you've made me
aware of an interesting fact that I hadn't considered before.
Terms like "panzerbush" arose 30 years ago to describe problems with an
unoptimized sequential system, so you're absolutely correct that an
unenhanced ugoigo system will be badly defective. But unfortunately, the 2
most popular wargames -- Warhammer and WH40K -- have stunningly incompetent
ugoigo systems.
I think I now understand why so many people -- who haven't been playing
since the Reformation -- think ugoigo is inferior. They're not necessarily
obtuse, they just may not be aware that WH/WH40K contain flaws that were
recognized and handled by other designers 30 years ago. They need to
understand that GW's incompetent and primitive implementation is the
problem -- not ugoigo systems in general.
And my experience is that asymetrical games have systemic problems that make
them unsuitable for the kinds of games I like to play. These problems can be
mitigated -- I disclosed one system I'm working on. But it's still a
problem.
Plus, the major problems with ugoigo systems also exist with asymetric
systems. In my experience, it takes at least as much effort to deal with
those problems in asymetric systems.
So I am unsold on the inherent superiority of such systems.
> We have a house rule for sequence of play for HotT. It uses the rolls done
> for generating PIPs to determinate also the seqence of play:
> 1. every side rolls a D8. The side with the higher roll becomes player A
> (the other one player B) and makes their moves with a PIP number of his D8
> score minus the opponent's D8 score.
So...Player 1 rolls a 7 and Payer 2 rolls a 2. Player 1 gets 5 moves?
> 2. Player B rolls his D8, A's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
> higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.
Player 1 keeps his roll of 7. Player 2 rolls a 4. Player 1 gets 3 more
moves?
So far, Player 1 has 8 unanswered moves. Wouldn't that be a pretty
significant advantage?
> 3. Player A rolls his D8, B's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
> higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.
Player 2 keeps his roll of 5. Player 1 rolls a 6. Player 1 gets 1 more
moves?
At this point, Player 1 has 9 unanswered moves.
> 4. Goto 2.
This is reminiscent of the Piquet system -- the difference between d20 rolls
is the number of actions, although the deck can occasionally end the turn
before all activations are done.
I detest that system. A couple of lucky rolls and the lucky player rolls
over his hapless opponent. Not good.
It's been a very long time since I played HOTT/DBA so I can't tell if I'd
hate your system or not. But it seems to me that a player who rolls poorly
on one roll can find himself being overrun by his opponent. The system
exacerbates the effect of bad (or good) rolls because the roll "counts" for
2 turns. just because of a few die rolls. If a player rolls a "2" and his
opponent rolls a "6", his opponent will get 4 unanswered rolls. This will
happen 1 in 16 times. Not so bad. But the player that rolls the 2 is stuck
with that roll for 2 rounds. This will happen 1 time in 4. And a player who
rolls a 7 gets that roll for 2 turns. Seems to me that bad (or good) luck on
a very few rolls could determine the victor, regardless of how well the
players play. In addition, the timing of such rolls is critical. If Player 1
has a string of good luck that allows him to maul Player 2's forces, Player
2 will not be able to recover even if he gets a comparable run of good luck
later. That is the inherent fallacy of arguments like "the rolls will even
out over the course of the game", particularly when we're dealing with a
relatively small number of such rolls -- 20 or so in a typical game,
compared with 5-7 times as many combat rolls.
Bottom line -- I think that if you must highly randomize a mechanic, choose
mechanics that (a) involve a large number of rolls over the course of a
game; and (b) tend to have a relatively modest impact on the game on a *per
roll* basis.
If you highly randomize systems that involve small numbers of rolls, each of
which can have a significant impact, many of your games will be decided by
luck, not skill.
Not to my taste, but YMMV.
I generally randomize combat and leave the sequence of play unrandomized.
--Ty
Ty
have now confirmed something I've long suspected -- GW stores are a
boondoggle and the company should ditch them ASAP.
Personally, I believe that GW's greatest strength lies in producing cool
miniatures and engaging backgrounds. If I were CEO, I'd sell off the retail
chain and outsource the game design work -- or design the games myself
<grin>. Then I'd make miniatures and sell the hell out of them.
GW's alienation of the local hobby store owners is particularly mystifying.
While the local stores account for 42% of sales dollars (down from 50% when
sales were much higher), they must account for a huge majority of products
sold. Here's why.
1. GW sells a blister to a local hobby store for 45% of list price. So a $10
blister produces $5.50 in gross income.
2. GW sells a blister through its own stores for full price. So a $10
blister produces $10.00 in gross income.
So, GW has to sell 2 blisters to a hobby store to produce the same gross
income as it gets selling 1 blister through its own stores or website. In
2006, local hobby store sales generated £49m in gross income. GW generated
£67m in gross income from its own stores and websites. If GW averages £10 on
each item sold through its stores, (the exact amount isn't important), then
it sold 6.7 million items through those stores. Since it therefore only
averaged £5 per sale through local hobby stores, then it sold 8.4 million
items through them. The hobby stores therefore sell 56% of the products, yet
only account for 42% of sales. A percentage that is decreasing even as sales
are decreasing. Not a good sign.
Even if GW's profits had not declined because *sales volume* is down, it;s
still idiotic to undermine the section of your business that sells the
majority of your product. <shrug>
Here's why I think that the Games Workshop stores were a lousy idea.
Assume two identical stores, one a GW store, the other a locally owned store
in identically profitable locations. The GW store's operating expense will
be at least as much as the hobby store -- GW leases cost as much as local
guy's leases. Indeed, local guy, because he is exempt from many of the more
costly government regulations, will probably have lower expenses for that
reason alone. And since local guy won't eat if his store fails, he has a
very strong incentive to maximize profit and efficiency. This is why closely
held family businesses can often kick the crap out of large public
companies, especially in niche markets. The only way that GW can gain an
advantage is to sell at a discount. It can't do this on a large scale
because if it did, local stores would stop carrying it. Poof, there goes 42%
of its gross sales and 56% of its production.
So at the end of the day, the GW store costs as much or more to operate as
the hobby store. And GW shareholders are gonna require at least the same
profit margin as the hobby store owns.
Let's say that each store sells $300K in GW stuff (that's about average for
GW stores). Let's say that non inventory expenses total $120K for each one.
The hobby store must buy its inventory, so it pays $165K to GW for a net
profit of $15K. On the surface, GW is making a killing. It appears to have
made $300K - $120K = $180K in profit. However, this is an illusion. First,
GW had to pay additional costs that the hobby store didn't have to. Their
financials imply that it cost them about $100K to make the products that
were sold. Probably $40K per store is consumed by administrative costs.
Maybe more. They've now apparently made $40K of net profit.
However, these stores cost money to setup. Say 400 total stores (some have
closed) times $200K. $80 million spent on this boondoggle -- in a company
that made $26 million profit in its best year. Stunning.
That money, if invested in conservative investments, would have made about
$4.8 million per year. So each of the 338 stores effectively costs $14K per
year in unearned investment income. At a minimum. Had that money been
invested in other areas of the company, the total would have been much
higher. That $30K profit has declined to $16K.
And in the real world, local stores are usually run at a lower cost than
comparable stores owned by large chains. This is probably offset by GWs
better capitalization and advertising efficiencies.
But here is the bitter irony. GW's management failed to understand how big
chains compete in the real world! Shocking. See, the large chains win
because they offer far lower prices and better selection. But GW cannot
lower prices without losing 42% of its sales and 56% of its product volume.
Now, manufacturers have opened retail chains to provide an outlet for their
goods. But GW's stuff is carried by local hobby stores! And well stocked
hobby stores have comparable selections to the GW stores I've seen, so I'm
skeptical that a local hobby store can't carry sufficient inventory.
And HERE is the unkindest cut of all. In many cases, GW *replaced* local
retailers who carried GW products. In every such case, GW lost the profit
from those sales -- $65K per year. The same is true if a GW store
discourages someone else from opening a store that would carry GW products.
If this happened in 2/3 of the cases, GW has lost about $40K for every
single store it runs per year -- $12m per year. That mythical profit from GW
stores just evaporated. GW has spent $80m to earn...nothing. And who knows
how many tens of millions of profit dollars were lost as retailers decided
not to help GW put them out of business.
I'm staggered by the sheer scale of the ineptitude on display here. If
management can make such horrible financial decisions, then it's pretty easy
to see why their rules suck.
Ye Gods, would that I could get away with that level of ineptitude in my
business!
By the way, there's a simpler way to figure out that the GW stores are a
terrible idea. Operating costs for their stores exceeded $112m in the last
few years (most admin costs are salaries and most of them are paid to store
employees, so I attribute 80% of admin costs to the stores...it's probably
higher). The stores made $111m this year -- a net loss of $1 million. Even
in GW's best year, the stores made $140m. However, costs were that year were
$128m. But remember the loss of the hobby stores put out of business (or
discouraged from going into business) by GW stores - $12m per year. And
don't forget the opportunity cost of spending $80 million to open these
stores -- $6m per year. And I can't imagine the cost of alienating half of
their distribution network.
So in their best year, the GW stores still lost money at the end of the day.
Amazing.
If I were GW, I'd sell every single one of those GW stores to local owners.
Even if you sold them at fire sale prices, they'd have to net $8 million or
so. GW would retain its market, but would wipe out an unprofitable
boondoggle that has infuriated half their distribution chain. The company
could then focus its energy and money on what it does best. I'd bet that
this revised GW could make $160m in gross sales (only 2/3 of this year's
sales). Assuming a 50% cost of goods sold, that still leaves $80 million in
gross profit. Administrative and operating costs couldn't exceed $20
million. This GW 2.0 would make $60 million in profit -- almost 3 times its
best year. And if sales climbed to 2003 levels, the profit would be
scandalous...$120 million or so.
Anybody got about $200 million I can borrow?
--Ty
Peter Pradelski
It's by far not only WHFB and 40K which do have poorly designed IgoUgo. I
would go so far to say poorly designed IgoUgo are the usual case, well
designed a minority. At least by far the most rulesets I know produce some
stupid results under certain circumstances, which effects can be in most
cases (relatively) simply reduced or even removed by changing to a more
randomized sequence of play.
I belive, doing a IgoUgo well is lots more difficult than archiving an
average quality ruleset with a randomized sequence of play.
>
> And my experience is that asymetrical games have systemic problems that
> make them unsuitable for the kinds of games I like to play. These problems
> can be mitigated -- I disclosed one system I'm working on. But it's still
> a problem.
>
> Plus, the major problems with ugoigo systems also exist with asymetric
> systems. In my experience, it takes at least as much effort to deal with
> those problems in asymetric systems.
I disagree. Imho design flaws hit lots harder with a IgoUgo sequence of play
than the same design flaws would do in a asymetrical one. I consider
randomizing the sequence of play as an easy way to turn a bad ruleset into
one of average quality.
>
> So I am unsold on the inherent superiority of such systems.
>
>> We have a house rule for sequence of play for HotT. It uses the rolls
>> done for generating PIPs to determinate also the seqence of play:
>
>> 1. every side rolls a D8. The side with the higher roll becomes player A
>> (the other one player B) and makes their moves with a PIP number of his
>> D8 score minus the opponent's D8 score.
>
> So...Player 1 rolls a 7 and Payer 2 rolls a 2. Player 1 gets 5 moves?
Yes.
>
>> 2. Player B rolls his D8, A's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
>> higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.
>
> Player 1 keeps his roll of 7. Player 2 rolls a 4. Player 1 gets 3 more
> moves?
Yes.
>
> So far, Player 1 has 8 unanswered moves. Wouldn't that be a pretty
> significant advantage?
>
>> 3. Player A rolls his D8, B's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
>> higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.
>
> Player 2 keeps his roll of 5. Player 1 rolls a 6. Player 1 gets 1 more
> moves?
Yes.
>
> At this point, Player 1 has 9 unanswered moves.
Not exactly. Getting all the PIPs at once would destroy the game, 5+3+1 in
sequence doesn't. ;-)
That's because one efect that cannot occur in a IgoUgo game - the player who
has the luck on his side at moment hast to consider this can change, and
how important it could be to spend a part of the PIPs for moving the troops
in a position good for defence against an opponent with lots of PIPs.
Imho this mechanism is fine for modelling friction and of errors/confusion
in the command chain and dealing with the possibility of them.
>
>> 4. Goto 2.
>
> This is reminiscent of the Piquet system -- the difference between d20
> rolls is the number of actions, although the deck can occasionally end the
> turn before all activations are done.
>
> I detest that system. A couple of lucky rolls and the lucky player rolls
> over his hapless opponent. Not good.
>
> It's been a very long time since I played HOTT/DBA so I can't tell if I'd
> hate your system or not. But it seems to me that a player who rolls poorly
> on one roll can find himself being overrun by his opponent.
Yes, it can happen. Not that often like it maybe seems to be.
> The system
> exacerbates the effect of bad (or good) rolls because the roll "counts"
> for
> 2 turns.
Yes. On the other side the "waves" of luck imho produce the best amount of
predictability of the future course of the game - IgoUgo gives You to much
of this predictability, more randomized systems not enough of them.
> Not to my taste, but YMMV.
I play different games for different kinds of fun. Sometimes I like stuff
and rules I would detest in a different setting. I like squigs and fanatics
in WHFB, for HotT I like our house rule PIP generating mechanism - and I
like completly different things in historical or sf settings.
Ty
> Ty wrote:
>> Hi Peter.
>> That's a fair point...and thanks for the compliment. And you've made me
>> aware of an interesting fact that I hadn't considered before.
>> Terms like "panzerbush" arose 30 years ago to describe problems with an
>> unoptimized sequential system, so you're absolutely correct that an
>> unenhanced ugoigo system will be badly defective. But unfortunately, the
>> 2
>> most popular wargames -- Warhammer and WH40K -- have stunningly
>> incompetent ugoigo systems.
>> I think I now understand why so many people -- who haven't been playing
>> since the Reformation -- think ugoigo is inferior. They're not
>> necessarily
>> obtuse, they just may not be aware that WH/WH40K contain flaws that were
>> recognized and handled by other designers 30 years ago. They need to
>> understand that GW's incompetent and primitive implementation is the
>> problem -- not ugoigo systems in general.
> It's by far not only WHFB and 40K which do have poorly designed IgoUgo. I
> would go so far to say poorly designed IgoUgo are the usual case, well
> designed a minority. At least by far the most rulesets I know produce some
> stupid results under certain circumstances, which effects can be in most
> cases (relatively) simply reduced or even removed by changing to a more
> randomized sequence of play.
You're probably correct. Maybe that's why I started designing my own games
:-)
Like most who have gamed as long as I have, I was a huge boardgamer. And
boardgames had far more refined mechanics than miniature games. Since 98% of
them were some form of igougo, and there were thousands of different board
games, these mechanics were refined far more than miniature games throughout
the 1970s and 80s.
However, boardgaming effectively died in the late 1980s, so most younger
gamers have little experience with them.
> I belive, doing a IgoUgo well is lots more difficult than archiving an
> average quality ruleset with a randomized sequence of play.
Maybe so. I've personally found igougo to be easier, but that could just be
because my games have seemed to do pretty well in this area.
I will agree that poor design decisions -- especially in the movement and
weapon range ratios -- will often be multiplied in games where one player
can move his whole army before the other player gets to. But this is a
designer issue; there are equally taxing challenges when designing
asymetrical games.
>> And my experience is that asymetrical games have systemic problems that
>> make them unsuitable for the kinds of games I like to play. These
>> problems
>> can be mitigated -- I disclosed one system I'm working on. But it's still
>> a problem.
>> Plus, the major problems with ugoigo systems also exist with asymetric
>> systems. In my experience, it takes at least as much effort to deal with
>> those problems in asymetric systems.
> I disagree. Imho design flaws hit lots harder with a IgoUgo sequence of
> play
> than the same design flaws would do in a asymetrical one. I consider
> randomizing the sequence of play as an easy way to turn a bad ruleset into
> one of average quality.
I'd agree with that, but I tend to write rules from the ground up rather
than spending time trying to turn crappy rules into average rules. But
please consider this point. The problems with igougo games will occur to
some extent in *any* rules that lack truly simultaneous movement. And the
main problems are panzerbushing, tankbushing and turnbushing. The same
mechanics that fix these problems in igougo games are also very effective at
fixing them in asymetrical games.
> Yes.
> Yes.
> Yes.
A fair point, and I acknowledge that igougo games can have similar problems.
But I wouldn't play that way if I got lucky early. I'd attempt to maul my
enemy now so that a later turn of luck for him won't help much.
> Imho this mechanism is fine for modelling friction and of errors/confusion
> in the command chain and dealing with the possibility of them.
See my comments on friction in other threads. I think that the explicit
modeling of friction is overrated, personally.
>>> 4. Goto 2.
>> This is reminiscent of the Piquet system -- the difference between d20
>> rolls is the number of actions, although the deck can occasionally end
>> the
>> turn before all activations are done.
>> I detest that system. A couple of lucky rolls and the lucky player rolls
>> over his hapless opponent. Not good.
>> It's been a very long time since I played HOTT/DBA so I can't tell if I'd
>> hate your system or not. But it seems to me that a player who rolls
>> poorly
>> on one roll can find himself being overrun by his opponent.
> Yes, it can happen. Not that often like it maybe seems to be.
Well...the spread between rolls will be 5+ one time in 16. That means it
will happen once in most games. The $50 question is whether this will have a
significant impact on the game when it occurs.
>> The system
>> exacerbates the effect of bad (or good) rolls because the roll "counts"
>> for
>> 2 turns.
> Yes. On the other side the "waves" of luck imho produce the best amount of
> predictability of the future course of the game - IgoUgo gives You to much
> of this predictability, more randomized systems not enough of them.
Well, I think that you overvalue unpredictability -- that is, in comparison
to me. I prefer for skill to be more important than luck. I also play modern
games mostly, where combined arms operations -- requiring constant
coordination between different units -- are typical. Asymetrical games make
such coordination far harder than it should be.
>> Not to my taste, but YMMV.
> I play different games for different kinds of fun. Sometimes I like stuff
> and rules I would detest in a different setting. I like squigs and
> fanatics
> in WHFB, for HotT I like our house rule PIP generating mechanism - and I
> like completly different things in historical or sf settings.
At the end of the day, whether you enjoy the game is the most important
issue. As I said earlier, someone who listens to Glen Campbell has little
standing to be critical of the tastes of others.
I will add your mechanic to my library. I may be ruthlessly and callously
appropriate it some day for a game, so be prepared.
--Ty
Jim M
tybear...@sbcglobal.net says...
<snip>
>
> > I belive, doing a IgoUgo well is lots more difficult than archiving an
> > average quality ruleset with a randomized sequence of play.
>
> Maybe so. I've personally found igougo to be easier, but that could just be
> because my games have seemed to do pretty well in this area.
>
> I will agree that poor design decisions -- especially in the movement and
I think that both of you are forgetting that in an igo-ugo system both
players segments are supposed to be happening at the same time. The
unfortunate thing is that game designers tend to write this into their
rules and then turn around and forget it.
So here is a solution, don't remove shooting casualties until the end of
the turn, this would be after player A and B both complete their turns.
You would still remove casualties from close combat immediately, but the
idea that all shooting in a turn takes place simultaneously and then
some figures are removed before they get to shoot is silly at best.
Here is an example of how it would work.
Player A:
movement
shooting
closecombat
remove close combat casualties
Player B:
movement
shooting
closecombat
remove close combat casualties
both players remove shooting casualties
end of turn
This would remove some of the ambiguity of the game. The other solution
would be to have
Player A move
both players may shoot some or all of their units
Player B moves
close combat resolution
all units that have not yet fired may do so
removal of casualties
end of turn
Of course there are as many solutions as their are people to think of
them...
Desert Lurker
<snip funny stuff>
>
> Brokeback Bolter: "I wish I could quit you Mephiston"
Curse you donovan_borman now I need to clean my keyboard!
joe
Eric A. Johnson
"Jim M" <hnjc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f37187e6...@news.east.earthlink.net...
I like the latter, although you might want to have the Close Combat
Resolution after the "Second Fire Phase" that way the assault armies don't
complain that their units end up as targets. That is assuming that the CC
models are removed as they happen instead of at the end of the turn.
Also, with this type of system, what do you have to prevent "dead units
walking?" Or handle the idea of assaulting a unit which already has dead
models from fire and then has to take more in the assault. With a
simultaneous nature system it would be obvious that players would take
wounds against models which would be dead, raising the ire of the assault
armies.
It would almost seem like it would be better to have the removal of
casualties be a Damage Resolution phase so that players only mark their hits
(or wounds) in the fire and CC phases and then resolve them all at the end
of the turn.
Tracy Hale perhaps at
>
> Player A:
> movement
> shooting
> closecombat
> remove close combat casualties
> Player B:
> movement
> shooting
> closecombat
> remove close combat casualties
> both players remove shooting casualties
> end of turn
>
The problem I see here is a unit could charge across an open field in the
face of enemy fire and not take casualties until after they have had their
melee attack.
Back in the Rogue Trader days, I took the Squad Leader sequence and welded
it to the 40k system. Some alterations. Can't recall all the details but
it's sorta like this.
A: All manditory movement, rally checks and such.
B: Player A can fire any of his units.
C: Player A can move any unit not firing. You cannot get closer then 1" to
an enemy.
C2: Player B can interupt movement to fire his units at any target that
moves into or through their field of fire
C3: After all movement, Player B can fire any units not firing at moving
targets.
D: Player A fires any units that did not fire in phase B. Moving units take
a penalty.
Some weapons of course can't fire if moved.
E: Any unit able to do so may move 1", including into melee
F: Melee
I also pulled the concept of "Disrupted" from Squad Leader. Any unit taking
hits made a leadership check. A penalty of 1 per casualty (I think, it's
been a long time). Failure meant disrupted. Movement was 1/2, fire was at a
big penalty (-2 I think) and it could not move into close combat. Rout tests
while disrupted also took a 1 point penalty.
Robert Singers
[snip]
> If I were GW, I'd sell every single one of those GW stores to local
> owners. Even if you sold them at fire sale prices, they'd have to net
> $8 million or so. GW would retain its market, but would wipe out an
> unprofitable boondoggle that has infuriated half their distribution
> chain.
Not quite. IMO they should have a handful of 'MegaStores' in locations
where people generally visit when holidaying. Make it an experience with a
huge range and bitz for sale. The rest get rid of.
--
Rob Singers
RGMW FAQ Maintainer. See it @ http://www.rgmw.org
Foemina Erit Ruina Tua
Ty
news:Xns9811BED8F3C9Ersingers@IP-Hidden...
> Between saving the world and having a spot of tea Ty said
> [snip]
>> If I were GW, I'd sell every single one of those GW stores to local
>> owners. Even if you sold them at fire sale prices, they'd have to net
>> $8 million or so. GW would retain its market, but would wipe out an
>> unprofitable boondoggle that has infuriated half their distribution
>> chain.
> Not quite. IMO they should have a handful of 'MegaStores' in locations
> where people generally visit when holidaying. Make it an experience with
> a
> huge range and bitz for sale. The rest get rid of.
Hey Robert.
Well, I suspect that even their "megastores" make little profit. After all,
they have more employees, higher leases, etc. Even if they are profitable,
they could be sold for desparately needed cash and GW would still get most
of the profit anyway by selling to them.
And why piss off 50%+ of your distribution chain for chump change?
Don't worry; the odds of GW abandoning their retail chain are about the same
as me moving to Aruba with a harem of Victoria's Secret supermodels. There's
way too much corporate ego -- and money -- tied up there. In addition, even
if the CEO and Board had a sudden significant increase in business acumen,
they *still* could not make it happen in any reasonable time frame. The
reason is that the CEO would have to rely on his underlings to make it
happen. And most of them would fight him tooth and nail. The reason is that
80% of GW's staff is in the retail division or provides direct support to
it. In public companies, individual executives are largely judged on the
size of their departments, not on anything as blase as economic performance.
The management team as a whole is judged by the stock price. Not an
unreasonable standard -- if stock price is a reasonable proxy for
performance. In GW's case, it won't be if current trends are not only halted
but dramatically reversed. But the point is that people respond to the
incentives they're faced with. It is little comfort to the head of the
retail division that GW is staggeringly profitable if he's out of a job, or
relegated to a minor status. Hence the phenomenon known as the "golden
parachute".
The head of the retail division (and his political allies) would not be keen
on wiping out his division. Accounting and legal would oppose it, since they
probably spend 80% of their time and energy on supporting retail. As would
IT, marketing, you name it. The only allies the CEO would have are the
manufacturing division. And even they might be lukewarm, since eliminating
the retail line would probably cause a short term disruption in orders,
which would require economies in manufacturing as well. Even the
shareholders would probably be uneasy, since the stock market usually
rewards gross sales more than anything else.
GW is like the guy that has the tiger by the tail. They cannot expand the
retail division much further because (a) it's too expensive and they lack
the cash; and (b) it will erode their remaining support among local
retailers, which is critical for GW to stay afloat. There's also the problem
that most of the Board enthusiastically supported the retail chains. Selling
them off would confirm that they were fools. The strategy was fundamentally
defective from the start. The only advantage chains have over locals are
pricing and selection. GW's retail chain has neither advantage over a
comparable sized game store. I'll bet the shareholders would love to have
that $80 million in cash today. That alone would probably drive the stock
price up 40%.
I think that my strategy would require either a hostile takeover or a
complete purge of upper management. Both of which are unlikely, IMHO, at
least now. But if that stock price plunges down to 50p a share, I think that
a takeover would be a very smart move for an investor who knew how to fix
the problems (and who had his own management team). If current trends
continue, GW will be insolvent within 18 months. Sooner if they do what I
suspect they're gonna do -- dramatically increase internet marketing by
offering discounts or free shipping, and cut the dealer discount again. Such
moves would infuriate many local hobby stores. The volume and percentage of
sales from local hobby stores would decline even more than it already has.
On the heels of the latest ~20% price increase, this would effectively
destroy GW's market.
I'd suggest that folks who complain about GW's "greed" consider the fact
that GW's overall profits have not been scandalously high -- 13% in their
very best year. Nor is management and director compensation out of line with
similar sized companies. The problem is that GW is needlessly inefficient
due to its bizarre obsession with dominating the retail market. So GW
continually raises prices and their customers pay for the inefficiency.
Unfortunately, they appear to have *finally* gone too far. As noted, in the
last 2 years, they've raised prices an average of at least 20% (and cut the
discount to hobby stores). Yet sales have declined 30%. It's hard to see how
further increases in prices will help them.
The tragedy is that if my numbers and assumptions are reasonably accurate,
GW could make a scandalous profit *and* cut prices dramatically. All they
have to do is get rid of that boat anchor that's tied round their neck --
the retail division.
--Ty
Jim M
sha...@comcast.net says...
> > Player A move
> > both players may shoot some or all of their units
> > Player B moves
> > close combat resolution
> > all units that have not yet fired may do so
> > removal of casualties
> > end of turn
> >
> > Of course there are as many solutions as their are people to think of
> > them...
>
> I like the latter, although you might want to have the Close Combat
> Resolution after the "Second Fire Phase" that way the assault armies don't
> complain that their units end up as targets. That is assuming that the CC
> models are removed as they happen instead of at the end of the turn.
>
> Also, with this type of system, what do you have to prevent "dead units
> walking?" Or handle the idea of assaulting a unit which already has dead
> models from fire and then has to take more in the assault. With a
> simultaneous nature system it would be obvious that players would take
> wounds against models which would be dead, raising the ire of the assault
> armies.
>
> It would almost seem like it would be better to have the removal of
> casualties be a Damage Resolution phase so that players only mark their hits
> (or wounds) in the fire and CC phases and then resolve them all at the end
> of the turn.
>
removal of casualties listed twice, once after each shooting phase.
Shooting in both of the shooting phases would take place in initiative
order (just like close combat). The whole purpose of placing the second
shooting phase after close combat is to be able to shoot those troops
that flee from close combat. Or advance after close combat into an
enemies LOS. Part of close combat is casualty removal. It also allows
both sides to fire their weapons after the other player makes their
initial movement. The imprtant thing is that during a single turn each
figure is allowed to shoot their weapon only once and close combat
happens only once.
Jim M
<saxon-dog (perhaps at) comcast.net> says...
> > Here is an example of how it would work.
> >
> > Player A:
> > movement
> > shooting
> > closecombat
> > remove close combat casualties
> > Player B:
> > movement
> > shooting
> > closecombat
> > remove close combat casualties
> > both players remove shooting casualties
> > end of turn
> >
>
> The problem I see here is a unit could charge across an open field in the
> face of enemy fire and not take casualties until after they have had their
> melee attack.
>
That was why I posted the second system that you snipped out. Though I
left out the first shooting casualty removal phase.
> Back in the Rogue Trader days, I took the Squad Leader sequence and welded
> it to the 40k system. Some alterations. Can't recall all the details but
> it's sorta like this.
>
> A: All manditory movement, rally checks and such.
> B: Player A can fire any of his units.
> C: Player A can move any unit not firing. You cannot get closer then 1" to
> an enemy.
> C2: Player B can interupt movement to fire his units at any target that
> moves into or through their field of fire
> C3: After all movement, Player B can fire any units not firing at moving
> targets.
> D: Player A fires any units that did not fire in phase B. Moving units take
> a penalty.
> Some weapons of course can't fire if moved.
> E: Any unit able to do so may move 1", including into melee
> F: Melee
>
> I also pulled the concept of "Disrupted" from Squad Leader. Any unit taking
> hits made a leadership check. A penalty of 1 per casualty (I think, it's
> been a long time). Failure meant disrupted. Movement was 1/2, fire was at a
> big penalty (-2 I think) and it could not move into close combat. Rout tests
> while disrupted also took a 1 point penalty.
>
I never much cared for SL or ASL... I played it, only because some of
the guys I gamed with loved it...
Andy O'Neill
Geting rid of the retail chain comletely just isn't going to happen.
But.#Here in t he UK, the shops are their marketing edge.
Over the years their shops have enabled them to pretty much stifle any
competition.
Andy O'Neill
I'm unclear whether you're advocating an alternative approach or have
misunderstood what I mean by alternate activations.
So I'll explain roughly how sg2 works.
(It's my slightly modified version of sg2 I'm describing but the differences
are not significant. )
In a bound anyone can only shoot once.
Per activation a squad/tank/thing gets two actions.
Simplest actions are move and fire.
You have a marker next to each squad which you turn up at the start of a
bound.
With the exception of command re-activations you get one activation per
squad per bound.
At the start of a bound both sides pick a squad to activate first.
They roll off quality dice.
The winner decides which goes first.
So the first squad is activated.
It moves ( 1 action ) then shoots ( 1 action ).
The shooting is resolved.
If it had moved into sight of an enemy in it's move action then they could
interrupt with any unactivated and unsuppressed squad has LoS.
So if you pop round a corned someone is covering, they can potentially shoot
you.
An interrupting squad gets one action and uses up it's activation.
Once activated, the chit mentioned above is turned over.
If there player about to activate has less unactivated units than the other
player they can choose to pass.
This is obviously necessary for attack defence where the defender will
usually have less stuff and you don't want the attacker suddenly getting to
move half his things without the defender answering.
The squads etc are organised in fairly standard militarty fashion with chain
of comman.
So there are 3 squads plus a command squad in a platoon and 3 platoons in a
company.
A platoon commander has some different command options.
He may re-activate someone he commands.
This gets harder the further away he is and if terrain is in the way and if
he can't see enemy engaging the target squad.
So if he's up in the thick of the action he is in the best position to
motivate his men and get them moving.
He is also at greatest risk though.
Another action is to rally squads.
Morale drops ithrough 5 states - confident through routed.
He can use an action to try and up the morale of a squad a step.
The original sg2 rules allow cascading re-activation ( company command
re-activates platoon Co who re-activates squad ).
I stop this in my changes.
I also state that each activation is potentially simultaneous with the
preceding enemy one.
Which closes some subtle loop-holes.
With the exception of op fire and re-activation the alternate activation is
simple since it's Igo one squad, Ugo one squad. Repeat until everything is
activated and that's the bound done..
Ty
> Well....
> Geting rid of the retail chain comletely just isn't going to happen.
>
> But.#Here in t he UK, the shops are their marketing edge.
> Over the years their shops have enabled them to pretty much stifle any
> competition.
At at terrible cost in capital and almost certainly in profit. The math
simply doesn't work for them. Something I fear GW's management will
belatedly discover after it's too late.
--Ty
John Hwang
> My continuing efforts to determing when I should start shorting GW stock
> have now confirmed something I've long suspected -- GW stores are a
> boondoggle and the company should ditch them ASAP.
WotC figured this out and just up and closed their stores, clearance
sales and all.
Of course, WotC is a pretty well-run company...
--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
John Hwang
> 4. These games reward luck, far more than skill. (I am uninterested in the
> absurd argument that skill somehow equates to managin luck.)
> All games have some
> luck (other than chess). But...luck has a greater influence in some designs
> and skill in others. I see it as a continuum --Chess (100% skill) on one end
> and "heads or tails" (100% luck) on the other.
I think you overestimate the factor of luck in Chess, specifically the
coin toss of who gets to move first. First move wins isn't strictly
true in Chess, but it's definitely an advantage.
Also Pure Skill is actually a VERY *BAD* thing, because it makes it hard
for unequal players to play "evenly". A little Luck is a good thing.
John Hwang
Ty wrote:
> WH40K offends on this point in several ways. 6" of movement is too low, if
> only because that means that you can only move 36" in a typical game -- and
> that's if you move every turn.
This is why 40k combat troopers don't hoof it. They have Jump Packs
that move 12", Transports that move 12", or Fleet of Foot d6" every
turn. This is also why 40k combat has a *minimum* 6" assault move.
> have a form of "strategic movement" which allows units to move 2-3 times as
> far, subject to severe combat restrictions.
i.e. Fleet of Foot / WFB Marching.
Tho holy hell, these are booth sucktasticly "busy" mechanics.
> And most terrain does not slow infantry down.
Yes, "Difficult Ground" tests are stupid. They are marginally
acceptable in a squad v squad skirmish game, but no larger!
> 2. Hold Fire. A stand that moves, but is eligible to fire may hold fire.
> That means that the stand will fire in the enemy fire phase. The fire is
> simultaneous, so the effects are assessed after all shooting.
This works, and is better than Overwatch, tho it needs a marker.
> Now, as to combat. I think combat should be fast and decisive (i.e.,
> relatively bloody). Especially in games with only 6 turns. WH40K deeply
> offends my sensibilities on this point. The problem is that stuff just
> doesn't die quick enough.
> This means that it will take an average of 4-5 turns for
> someone to die. Gack.
That is why 40k & WFB Assault is fought on *both* players turns! And
the assaulting player gets +1A on the first turn. If fought on just one
player's turn, nothing would ever die.
> The lack of lethality has pernicious -- and fatal -- effects on close
> combat. It makes initiative nearly irrelevant.
Unless someone has a Power Weapon. In this case, it's pretty relevant. :)
IMO, 3 steps (hit, wound, save) is 1 too many. Make it 2 steps and it'd
be fine.
> Bottom line -- in my games, combat will be intuitive, fast, and decisive.
> Close combats will rarely last more than one turn.
This might be too fast?
> Speaking of close combat, let's talk about how WH40K is utterly broken. Most
> close combat troops are statistically inferior to basic Space Marines,
Not so. Eldar Banshees & Scorpions are an even match. Genestealers PWNZOR.
> The reason is that the designer of the latest version of 40K
> failed to consider the effect of his new armor save system on close combat.
Not so. T4 and Sv3+ are the specific reasons why Marines are good.
> Here's the math. My books aren't handy so I may be a little off. Assume an
> alien close combat troop (WS4, S3, T3, Sv5+)
That is NOT even a decent a close combat troop. It is barely a 10-pt Ork.
A Scorpion is WS4 S4 A3 I5 Sv3+. A Banshee is WS4 S3 A2 I5+ Sv4+ that
*negates* the Marine's good Sv3+. Either Eldar CC Aspect is a fair
match against a Marine.
Chipacabra
news:vjEzg.7060$j9.2756@trnddc02:
> Ty wrote:
>> 4. These games reward luck, far more than skill. (I am uninterested
>> in the absurd argument that skill somehow equates to managin luck.)
>
>> All games have some
>> luck (other than chess). But...luck has a greater influence in some
>> designs and skill in others. I see it as a continuum --Chess (100%
>> skill) on one end and "heads or tails" (100% luck) on the other.
>
> I think you overestimate the factor of luck in Chess, specifically the
> coin toss of who gets to move first. First move wins isn't strictly
> true in Chess, but it's definitely an advantage.
>
> Also Pure Skill is actually a VERY *BAD* thing, because it makes it
> hard for unequal players to play "evenly". A little Luck is a good
> thing.
>
Some games manage okay. Go, for example, is able to accomodate players of
wildly different skills fairly elegantly, by giving the weaker player
some pieces on the board before the game starts.
John Hwang
> We have a house rule for sequence of play for HotT. It uses the rolls done
> for generating PIPs to determinate also the seqence of play:
>
> 1. every side rolls a D8. The side with the higher roll becomes player A
> (the other one player B) and makes their moves with a PIP number of his D8
> score minus the opponent's D8 score.
> 2. Player B rolls his D8, A's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
> higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.
> 3. Player A rolls his D8, B's D8 remains unchanged. The Player with the
> higher roll moves with PIPs of his D8 minus the opponent's D8.
> 4. Goto 2.
Oh for god's sakes...
You think *THIS* dicefest is "better" than IgoUgo?
Not.
John Hwang
> John Hwang <JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote :
Then they're no longer playing "evenly". The weaker player is up by 1
to 9. It's like giving the 40k or WFB with an extra 100-1000 pts in
Reserve.
Seamus
Andy O'Neill wrote:
> I'm unclear whether you're advocating an alternative approach or have
> misunderstood what I mean by alternate activations.
I'm advocating alternate approach from IGo-UGo, and mentioned the
immediate example (phase-based simultaneous movement) that sprang to
mind. I then stated that this example sounds like a nightmare to apply
to a game like Warhammer.
<snip example rules>
So the basis is somewhat like IGo-UGo, but with interrupts as far as
overwatch/cover-fire and LOS snapshots are concerned. Not necessarily a
bad way of doing it, really.
--
"These blast-points are too accurate for Imperial Guard; only Imperial
Special Effects personnel are so precise." - Fabrikus, World-Eaters
Apothecary
Ty
news:vjEzg.7060$j9.2756@trnddc02...
>> 4. These games reward luck, far more than skill. (I am uninterested in
>> the absurd argument that skill somehow equates to managin luck.)
>> All games have some luck (other than chess). But...luck has a greater
>> influence in some designs and skill in others. I see it as a
>> continuum --Chess (100% skill) on one end and "heads or tails" (100%
>> luck) on the other.
> I think you overestimate the factor of luck in Chess, specifically the
> coin toss of who gets to move first. First move wins isn't strictly true
> in Chess, but it's definitely an advantage.
And I forgot about the randomization of who goes first. I was also unaware
that moving first was considered an advantage.
Consider my scale to be amended to say "Chess -- after the coin toss". Or
substitute another game -- Go for instance.
> Also Pure Skill is actually a VERY *BAD* thing, because it makes it hard
> for unequal players to play "evenly". A little Luck is a good thing.
Oh I agree. Otherwise, I'd only play Chess... I think that some
randomization increases the enjoyment. It's just a question of how much luck
is enough. And that's obviously a very subjective call.
--Ty
Ty
> Ty wrote:
>> My continuing efforts to determing when I should start shorting GW stock
>> have now confirmed something I've long suspected -- GW stores are a
>> boondoggle and the company should ditch them ASAP.
> WotC figured this out and just up and closed their stores, clearance sales
> and all.
> Of course, WotC is a pretty well-run company...
Agreed. If I ever somehow became CEO of GW, I'd go spend a couple of days
with Peter Adkisson (sp?). WotC's redemption of TSR (which had engaged in
the same overbearing practices as GW, and had alienated its customers almost
as well as GW) is one of the most skillfully designed and executed marketing
campaigns I've ever seen.
--Ty
Jim M
says...
> Ty wrote:
> > My continuing efforts to determing when I should start shorting GW stock
> > have now confirmed something I've long suspected -- GW stores are a
> > boondoggle and the company should ditch them ASAP.
>
> WotC figured this out and just up and closed their stores, clearance
> sales and all.
>
> Of course, WotC is a pretty well-run company...
>
IIRC WotC closed their stores shortly after being bought out by Hasbro.
As an interesting side note, if you were to create a store that sold
nothing but Hasbro (and it's subsideries) games and toys it would
probably do fairly well.
Ty
> Ty wrote:
>> WH40K offends on this point in several ways. 6" of movement is too low,
>> if only because that means that you can only move 36" in a typical
>> game -- and that's if you move every turn.
> This is why 40k combat troopers don't hoof it. They have Jump Packs that
> move 12", Transports that move 12", or Fleet of Foot d6" every turn. This
> is also why 40k combat has a *minimum* 6" assault move.
Hey John.
Well, the problem is (again) the use of special rules and modifiers to
implement something that should have simply been reflected in the movement
allowance. And most Space Marines lack Jump Packs.
But you see, WH40K cannot have higher movement rates for everyone because it
lacks overwatch fire. The disortions caused by Panzerbushing increase
geometrically as a stand's movement allowance increases.
For a contra example, I once wrote a set of miniature rules emphasizing
airmobile operations in the early 21st century. The modern forces were
heavily airmobile in tiltrotor craft (or helicopters). The game used a Star
Fleet Battles/Car Wars like impulse movement system with 12 impulses. When
any stand moved in an impulse, it only moved 1". With such limited movement,
overwatch rules were unnecessary. But if I went with a normal sequence and
let helicopters move 12" at a time, the lack of overwatch rules would have
ruined the game.
>> have a form of "strategic movement" which allows units to move 2-3 times
>> as far, subject to severe combat restrictions.
> i.e. Fleet of Foot / WFB Marching.
> Tho holy hell, these are booth sucktasticly "busy" mechanics.
Yep. Again, why have special rules for such things? Give fleet of foot
troops more movement allowance and be done with it. And give all troops the
ability to make strategic moves (in lieu of shooting, etc.). The game will
be better.
I'll have to review the WFB marching rules (I cannot endure WFB).
>> And most terrain does not slow infantry down.
> Yes, "Difficult Ground" tests are stupid. They are marginally acceptable
> in a squad v squad skirmish game, but no larger!
I still think that the designer should be tortured slowly to death for such
an abomination. At the minimum, this rule is an embarrassment to the game
design "profession".
>> 2. Hold Fire. A stand that moves, but is eligible to fire may hold fire.
>> That means that the stand will fire in the enemy fire phase. The fire is
>> simultaneous, so the effects are assessed after all shooting.
> This works, and is better than Overwatch, tho it needs a marker.
Well, note that this is a complimentary mechanic to overwatch and pivot. You
really need all three mechanics. Yes, you need markers, but this has never
proven to be a problem. I use pennies with colored stick-on labels that say
"Over" or "Hold".
>> Now, as to combat. I think combat should be fast and decisive (i.e.,
>> relatively bloody). Especially in games with only 6 turns. WH40K deeply
>> offends my sensibilities on this point. The problem is that stuff just
>> doesn't die quick enough. This means that it will take an average of 4-5
>> turns for someone to die. Gack.
> That is why 40k & WFB Assault is fought on *both* players turns! And the
> assaulting player gets +1A on the first turn. If fought on just one
> player's turn, nothing would ever die.
Yes, but the shooting system is at least as undeadly in most cases. And you
only shoot once. Anyhow, I bitterly object to a game that requires 2-3 turns
to resolve a melee. 1/3 to 1/2 of the game...
>> The lack of lethality has pernicious -- and fatal -- effects on close
>> combat. It makes initiative nearly irrelevant.
> Unless someone has a Power Weapon. In this case, it's pretty relevant.
> :)
Yes, power weapons can improve the close combat system from "horrible" to
"marginal". Hence my prediction that they will effectively become universal
in the near future in WH40K. Without them, close combat sucks.
Of course, I'd have simply ignored armor in close combat from the beginning.
That is, if someone chopped my head open with a spade and removed 2/3 of my
brain and then put me in charge of GW game design...
> IMO, 3 steps (hit, wound, save) is 1 too many. Make it 2 steps and it'd
> be fine.
Yes. An early draft of mine combined armor and toughness into one rating.
However, this was difficult to get to work -- remember, my game has to be
able to use existing WH40K ratings -- and at the end of the day did not
produce a good enough result.
>> Bottom line -- in my games, combat will be intuitive, fast, and decisive.
>> Close combats will rarely last more than one turn.
> This might be too fast?
Only if you like slogging away for 1/3 to 1/2 the game in melee. I don't.
The FFB melee system is derived from other games I've designed, and players
have never complained about it, to my memory.
>> Speaking of close combat, let's talk about how WH40K is utterly broken.
>> Most close combat troops are statistically inferior to basic Space
>> Marines,
> Not so. Eldar Banshees & Scorpions are an even match. Genestealers
> PWNZOR.
I think that you're mistaken -- unless you give them power weapons.
>> The reason is that the designer of the latest version of 40K failed to
>> consider the effect of his new armor save system on close combat.
> Not so. T4 and Sv3+ are the specific reasons why Marines are good.
>> Here's the math. My books aren't handy so I may be a little off. Assume
>> an alien close combat troop (WS4, S3, T3, Sv5+)
> That is NOT even a decent a close combat troop. It is barely a 10-pt Ork.
I believe that I was comparing the close combat troops of the Dark Eldar --
a buddy uses them. But no matter.
> A Scorpion is WS4 S4 A3 I5 Sv3+. A Banshee is WS4 S3 A2 I5+ Sv4+ that
> *negates* the Marine's good Sv3+. Either Eldar CC Aspect is a fair match
> against a Marine.
How does the striking scorpion get 3 attacks? My reference sheet says 1
attack, adding 1 for close combat weapons is 2 attacks, isn't it? My
analysis does not include charge bonuses because either side can charge into
close combat.
Anyhow, assuming 3 attacks, the Scorpion will kill the marine (1/2 x 1/2 x
1/3 = ) 1/12 of the time per attack. This works out to (1-[11/12^3]) a net
23% chance in 3 attacks. Against a *normal* space marine. The Marine will
kill the Scorpion (1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 = ) 1/9 (or ~11%) of the time per attack.
If the Scorpion goes first, it will win 23% of the combats before the Space
Marine gets a shot. After 4 rounds of fighting, the Scorpion will win 57% of
the fights versus 21% for the space marine. How much does the Scorpion cost
compared with the basic space marine? Note that statistically, 47% of
combats will last 3+ rounds. 33% will last 4+ rounds. 22% will 5+ rounds.
15% will last 6+ rounds. Ick.
And if the Scorpion gets only two attacks, then it kills the Space Marine
(1-[11/12^2]) 16% of the time. After 4 rounds, the Scorpion wins 48% of the
fights and the marine wins 25% of the fights. And in this case, 55% of
fights will last 3+ rounds. 42% will last 4+ rounds. 31% will last 5+
rounds. Ick again.
The Banshee is much worse off. With 2 attacks, she kills the Marine (1/2 x
1/3 x 1/3 = ) 1/18 of the time per attack. With 2 attacks, she kills the
marine 11% of the time. The marine kills her (1/2 x 2/3 x 1/2) 1/6 of the
time. Even striking first, she's inferior to the standard Space Marine in
her specialty, close combat. After 4 rounds of fighting, she wins 30% of the
time and the Marine wins 40% of the time. And nearly 1/3 of these fights
will go on for 5+ rounds. Ugh.
The problem is the armor save. The statistics suggest that the armor save is
the most important variable in close combat. Now this might be realistic --
historically, heavy armored infantry tend to defeat lighter armed infantry
(the Spartans vs the Persian Immortals at Thermopylae for example). But the
point value of the troops should account for this.
And by the way, space marine close combat troops are even better, since they
get 2 attacks. In four rounds, against Scorpions (with 3 attacks), they win
25% of combats vs the Scorpion winning 40%. If the Scorpions only have 2
attacks, the Marine wins 42% vs 38% for the Scorpion. The Banshee is doomed.
In 4 rounds, the Marine wins 67% of the fights vs the Banshee winning 25%.
All examples assume the Eldar strike first, of course. How much do Banshees
cost compared to Space Marines?
All else being equal, 3+ armor save will make a stand 50% better in close
combat than a stand with a 4+ save. 100% better than a stand with a 5+ save.
150% better than a stand with a 6+ save. Does that really seem reasonable to
you, given the description of the 40K world?
And do you really want nearly half the melees to consume 2 full turns -- 1/3
of the game?
--Ty
Myrmidon
says...
Personally, I thought it needed more of Dark Angles slant since they're
the dress wearers.
Besides, everyone knows that "Psykers and Sensibility" was the far
better movie.
Myrmidon ;)
--
"I'm already impoverished from buying wargames minis,
and I'm too knackered for riotous living..."
-- Moramarth
RGMW FAQ: http://www.rgmw.org
Or...
Seamus
Jim M wrote:
> IIRC WotC closed their stores shortly after being bought out by Hasbro.
>
> As an interesting side note, if you were to create a store that sold
> nothing but Hasbro (and it's subsideries) games and toys it would
> probably do fairly well.
Who does Hasborg own?
I know they own WOTC, I'm pretty sure they own WizKids, and likely
FanPro, as well.
Am I missing anyone?
Jim M
tybear...@sbcglobal.net says...
> Of course, I'd have simply ignored armor in close combat from the beginning.
> That is, if someone chopped my head open with a spade and removed 2/3 of my
> brain and then put me in charge of GW game design...
>
>
Tracy Hale perhaps at
>> I also pulled the concept of "Disrupted" from Squad Leader. Any unit
>> taking
>> hits made a leadership check. A penalty of 1 per casualty (I think, it's
>> been a long time). Failure meant disrupted. Movement was 1/2, fire was at
>> a
>> big penalty (-2 I think) and it could not move into close combat. Rout
>> tests
>> while disrupted also took a 1 point penalty.
>>
>
> I never much cared for SL or ASL... I played it, only because some of
> the guys I gamed with loved it...
I loved SL, less love for ASL.... a lot less, but there were some good ideas
that were good for other games.
Jim M
fomori...@yahoo.com says...
Playskool, Tonka and Kenner are the first ones that spring to mind...
and a quick search led me here
http://www.hasbro.com/default.cfm?page=brands
Tracy Hale perhaps at
>
> That is why 40k & WFB Assault is fought on *both* players turns! And the
> assaulting player gets +1A on the first turn. If fought on just one
> player's turn, nothing would ever die.
>
I always found this to be one of the major flaws in the game. Why do we see
so few close fights in the real world? Because all the advantages are with
the defender not the attacker. The bonu to attackers in 40k to the attacker
going first in fantasy were always on my top reasons to dislike the system.
Andy O'Neill
news:n8CdnXEDCJOP01LZ...@comcast.com...
I'm not convinced that the defender has such an advantage in real world
moderns.
Modern infantry training stresses taking the initiative and holding it.
( This is kind of where the crossfire designer started off from. )
The idea is that the side with the initiative can choose the deciding point
of the battle.
They can mass force on this whilst the side who has lost the initiative just
has whatever force it deployed there.
The side with initiative can recce and decide which part of the defendece is
weakest.
OTOH,
Resolving all one sides attacks and then the others is an odd mechanic in
WFB.
Simultaneous casualties would seem much more "realistic" in a melee.
John Hwang
> "John Hwang" <JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>> This is why 40k combat troopers don't hoof it. They have Jump Packs that
>> move 12", Transports that move 12", or Fleet of Foot d6" every turn. This
>> is also why 40k combat has a *minimum* 6" assault move.
>
> Hey John.
>
> Well, the problem is (again) the use of special rules and modifiers to
> implement something that should have simply been reflected in the movement
> allowance. And most Space Marines lack Jump Packs.
They have very cheap Transports, only marginally less than the dirt
cheap Sisters Transports. They also have Drop Pods. Marines are plenty
mobile if the player wants them to be.
> The game used a Star Fleet Battles/Car Wars
> like impulse movement system with 12 impulses.
SFB is retarded. PB CW was 10-phase, and was vastly improved to
5-phase. The current 3-phase movement may be better yet again.
>> i.e. Fleet of Foot / WFB Marching.
>
>> Tho holy hell, these are booth sucktasticly "busy" mechanics.
>
> Yep. Again, why have special rules for such things? Give fleet of foot
> troops more movement allowance and be done with it. And give all
> troops the ability to make strategic moves (in lieu of shooting, etc.).
> The game will be better.
No argument here.
> I'll have to review the WFB marching rules (I cannot endure WFB).
They totally suck. Extremely high detail with Wheel & Reform.
>> Yes, "Difficult Ground" tests are stupid. They are marginally acceptable
>> in a squad v squad skirmish game, but no larger!
>
> I still think that the designer should be tortured slowly to death for such
> an abomination. At the minimum, this rule is an embarrassment to the game
> design "profession".
Yes, it's utter crap.
>>> 2. Hold Fire. A stand that moves, but is eligible to fire may hold fire.
>>> That means that the stand will fire in the enemy fire phase. The fire is
>>> simultaneous, so the effects are assessed after all shooting.
>
>> This works, and is better than Overwatch, tho it needs a marker.
>
> Well, note that this is a complimentary mechanic to overwatch and pivot. You
> really need all three mechanics. Yes, you need markers, but this has never
> proven to be a problem. I use pennies with colored stick-on labels that say
> "Over" or "Hold".
OK.
>>> Now, as to combat. I think combat should be fast and decisive (i.e.,
>>> relatively bloody). Especially in games with only 6 turns. WH40K deeply
>>> offends my sensibilities on this point. The problem is that stuff just
>>> doesn't die quick enough. This means that it will take an average of 4-5
>>> turns for someone to die. Gack.
>
>> That is why 40k & WFB Assault is fought on *both* players turns! And the
>> assaulting player gets +1A on the first turn. If fought on just one
>> player's turn, nothing would ever die.
>
> Yes, but the shooting system is at least as undeadly in most cases.
Hehe. You've never played against an AP-heavy army. My Eldar typically
fielded 2 full squads of AP3 Reapers, backed by 4 AP2 Cannons. My
shooting was quite deadly.
> And you only shoot once.
Multi-shot weapons close the gap in a big way.
> Anyhow, I bitterly object to a game that requires 2-3 turns
> to resolve a melee. 1/3 to 1/2 of the game...
>
>>> The lack of lethality has pernicious -- and fatal -- effects on close
>>> combat. It makes initiative nearly irrelevant.
>
>> Unless someone has a Power Weapon. In this case, it's pretty relevant.
>> :)
>
> Yes, power weapons can improve the close combat system from "horrible" to
> "marginal". Hence my prediction that they will effectively become universal
> in the near future in WH40K. Without them, close combat sucks.
40k prefers to have masses of dice, or special rules (Rending) to
smaller numbers of power weapons. It's actually OK, because basic
Marines slugging it out is pretty rare. Usually, somebody brings a
Power Weapon or Power Fist to speed things along.
> Of course, I'd have simply ignored armor in close combat from the beginning.
> That is, if someone chopped my head open with a spade and removed 2/3 of my
> brain and then put me in charge of GW game design...
It's alright.
>> IMO, 3 steps (hit, wound, save) is 1 too many. Make it 2 steps and it'd
>> be fine.
>
> Yes. An early draft of mine combined armor and toughness into one rating.
> However, this was difficult to get to work -- remember, my game has to be
> able to use existing WH40K ratings -- and at the end of the day did not
> produce a good enough result.
To hit: roll S vs T, re-roll based on BS.
To save: roll Sv, re-roll based on cover.
>>> Close combats will rarely last more than one turn.
>
>> This might be too fast?
>
> Only if you like slogging away for 1/3 to 1/2 the game in melee. I don't.
I would like 2-turns average so that combined assaults are possible,
rather than just steamrollering thru.
>>> Speaking of close combat, let's talk about how WH40K is utterly broken.
>>> Most close combat troops are statistically inferior to basic Space
>>> Marines,
>
>> Not so. Eldar Banshees & Scorpions are an even match. Genestealers
>> PWNZOR.
>
> I think that you're mistaken -- unless you give them power weapons.
I think you don't know the math. Banshees have PWs, and Scorps have the
Attacks and Save to give Marines a run for the money.
>>> Here's the math. My books aren't handy so I may be a little off. Assume
>>> an alien close combat troop (WS4, S3, T3, Sv5+)
>
>> That is NOT even a decent a close combat troop. It is barely a 10-pt Ork.
>
> I believe that I was comparing the close combat troops of the Dark Eldar --
> a buddy uses them. But no matter.
Ahh, OK. Dark Eldar Warriors are utter crap in HtH, and that's why they
cost half as much as a Marine. Dark Eldar Wyches are close combat
troops, and quite decent.
>> A Scorpion is WS4 S4 A3 I5 Sv3+. A Banshee is WS4 S3 A2 I5+ Sv4+ that
>> *negates* the Marine's good Sv3+. Either Eldar CC Aspect is a fair match
>> against a Marine.
>
> How does the striking scorpion get 3 attacks? My reference sheet says 1
> attack, adding 1 for close combat weapons is 2 attacks, isn't it?
Plus effectively 1 for Mandiblasters.
> My analysis does not include charge bonuses because either side can
> charge into close combat.
He effectively has *4* on the charge.
> Anyhow, assuming 3 attacks, the Scorpion will kill the marine (1/2 x 1/2 x
> 1/3 = ) 1/12 of the time per attack. This works out to (1-[11/12^3]) a net
> 23% chance in 3 attacks. Against a *normal* space marine. The Marine will
> kill the Scorpion (1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 = ) 1/9 (or ~11%) of the time per attack.
>
> If the Scorpion goes first, it will win 23% of the combats before the Space
> Marine gets a shot. After 4 rounds of fighting, the Scorpion will win 57% of
> the fights versus 21% for the space marine. How much does the Scorpion cost
> compared with the basic space marine?
The *SAME*. That is why he is a close combat specialist. He wins in
close combat.
And if there is a Farseer nearby to re-roll Scorpion saves, or a
Starcannon AGP to whittle the Marines down a bit (as there should).
Properly supported, Scorpions should always win against Marines.
> Note that statistically, 47% of
> combats will last 3+ rounds. 33% will last 4+ rounds. 22% will 5+ rounds.
> 15% will last 6+ rounds. Ick.
This is OK. If it takes that long, other units will pile in for the
finish. Combined arms and all that jazz.
> And if the Scorpion gets only two attacks,
Not applicable.
> The Banshee is much worse off.
No, she isn't.
> With 2 attacks,
She is a LOT faster with Fleet of Foot and can reasonably be assumed to
charge, but that's OK.
> she kills the Marine (1/2 x 1/3 x 1/3 = ) 1/18 of the time per attack.
Nope. You forget that *ALL* Banshees have Power Weapons. So they kill
the Marine 1/2 x 1/3 = 1/6 per attack.
> With 2 attacks, she kills the marine 11% of the time.
With 2 attacks, she kills the Marine about 20% of the time.
> The marine kills her (1/2 x 2/3 x 1/2) 1/6 of the
> time. Even striking first, she's inferior to the standard Space Marine in
> her specialty, close combat.
That's because you took away her Power Weapon! If you make the Marines
Invulnerable, *of course* Banshees are inferior!
> The problem is the armor save. The statistics suggest that the armor save is
> the most important variable in close combat.
And that is why true CC troops have the means to negate those saves.
> Now this might be realistic -- historically, heavy armored infantry
> tend to defeat lighter armed infantry (the Spartans vs
> the Persian Immortals at Thermopylae for example). But the
> point value of the troops should account for this.
It does.
> And by the way, space marine close combat troops are even better, since they
> get 2 attacks.
They cost 22+ pts with Jump Packs. They are not so much better.
> In four rounds, against Scorpions (with 3 attacks), they win
> 25% of combats vs the Scorpion winning 40%. If the Scorpions only have 2
> attacks, the Marine wins 42% vs 38% for the Scorpion. The Banshee is doomed.
Nonsense. Point for point, both Scorpions and Banshee will absolutely
*crush* Assault Marines in Jump Packs in HtH, assuming the Eldar player
doesn't pop them with shooting for 22+ juicy VPs per kill...
> In 4 rounds, the Marine wins 67% of the fights vs the Banshee winning 25%.
> All examples assume the Eldar strike first, of course. How much do Banshees
> cost compared to Space Marines?
They cost the *same*, but your math is screwed, which is why the
Banshees are actually slightly better. Scorpions, however are clearly
better because...
> All else being equal, 3+ armor save will make a stand 50% better in close
> combat than a stand with a 4+ save. 100% better than a stand with a 5+ save.
> 150% better than a stand with a 6+ save. Does that really seem reasonable to
> you, given the description of the 40K world?
Yes. I pay for Sv3+. I bolster it further with a Farseer to make it
re-rollable. When I go from 2/3 saves to 8/9 saves, you are simply
*NOT* killing my Scorpions in HtH or with basic shooting.
> And do you really want nearly half the melees to consume 2 full turns -- 1/3
> of the game?
Only when he's attacking me. :)
When I'm attacking him, I play combined arms to whittle things down
before I engage in HtH, so *my* attacks should take 1 turn.
donovan...@yahoo.com
Myrmidon wrote:
> In article <gLfzg.109510$1i1.71654@attbi_s72>, yeah...@nospam.com
> says...
> > donovan...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > <snip funny stuff>
> > >
> > > Brokeback Bolter: "I wish I could quit you Mephiston"
> >
> > Curse you donovan_borman now I need to clean my keyboard!
>
> Personally, I thought it needed more of Dark Angles slant since they're
> the dress wearers.
>
> Besides, everyone knows that "Psykers and Sensibility" was the far
> better movie.
That's one o' them fancy pants 40K movies, unlike "Pride and Extreme
Prejudice"
Desert Lurker
Desert Lurker
a CP (Will I think.) and my hero and all my guys within x" get to
move/fight too.
Joe
Alan Ritchie
"John Hwang" <JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:EXEzg.7063$j9.6910@trnddc02...
I will second this. I played chess at school for 6 years, first move or
not, I lost three times to "inferior" players (one game playing me vs six
others simultaneously, one embarassment, and one prodigy against whom I was
once over ambitious), won zero games against "better" players (got offered
one draw, refused, and promptly lost), and there were only two or three
players (out of say thirty) that I would consider equals. On the other
hand, I now play poker every week against 4 or 5 friends for penny stakes,
and nobody can predict the winner. Some players are consistently above
average, but they occasionally lose big, which keeps it interesting.
Now handicapping would be helpful, but the difficulty is then determining
the handicap. To go back to the chess example, I can beat my younger
brother or my cousin when down a queen, two rooks, or both knights and
bishops (1. 0-0, e7-e5... pointless I know) We found this by playing
repeatedly, until I lost. But determining a handicap could be time
consuming against individuals, or requires some fixed global standard
(golf).
Alan Ritchie
"Ty" <tybear...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:23Hzg.183$9T3...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> "John Hwang" <JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
> news:_CEzg.7061$j9.2042@trnddc02...
>
>> Ty wrote:
>>> 2. Hold Fire. A stand that moves, but is eligible to fire may hold fire.
>>> That means that the stand will fire in the enemy fire phase. The fire is
>>> simultaneous, so the effects are assessed after all shooting.
>
But does not stop opponents advancing from one block of cover to the next,
without being caught in the open. My concern about the 40k2 overwatch was
that we had problems determining where a unit actually was when it got shot
at. Interupting the movement phase failed when models effectively teleport
one by one to a new position. This solves one problem, but not the other.
>>> Now, as to combat. I think combat should be fast and decisive (i.e.,
>>> relatively bloody). Especially in games with only 6 turns. WH40K deeply
>>> offends my sensibilities on this point. The problem is that stuff just
>>> doesn't die quick enough. This means that it will take an average of 4-5
>>> turns for someone to die. Gack.
>
>> That is why 40k & WFB Assault is fought on *both* players turns! And the
>> assaulting player gets +1A on the first turn. If fought on just one
>> player's turn, nothing would ever die.
>
> Yes, but the shooting system is at least as undeadly in most cases. And
> you only shoot once. Anyhow, I bitterly object to a game that requires 2-3
> turns to resolve a melee. 1/3 to 1/2 of the game...
>
Don't forget morale. If I cannot force a low odds break test after two
rounds of combat, then I clearly did not concentrate enough men to the
combat. But I certainly do not need to kill every last one of my opponents
to win the combat. Melees generally only last 2-3 turns if we both keep
committing fresh units.
And in either W40k or WFB, every game that I have played has seen someone
reduced to a tiny portion of their starting forces by the end of the game,
so I cannot complain that it is not lethal enough
>>> Bottom line -- in my games, combat will be intuitive, fast, and
>>> decisive. Close combats will rarely last more than one turn.
>
>> This might be too fast?
>
> Only if you like slogging away for 1/3 to 1/2 the game in melee. I don't.
>
> The FFB melee system is derived from other games I've designed, and
> players have never complained about it, to my memory.
>
No opportunity to counter charge? Rely only on large movement allowances
and simultaneous movement? I am not saying that it does not work, just that
it is a substantial shift away from the current system, rather than one
where you could sensibly borrow some but not all rules.
What I find interesting is that some of these suggestions are close to the
old epic/space marine/titan legions ruleset, which predates 40k2. I do not
think that the current 40k rules are ideal, but I think I can defend any of
them on the grounds of speed, unpredictability (difficult terrain), or the
search for a good, rather than realistic, game, but perhaps not for their
elegance. But obviously we can always shift the balance in favour of a
faster or more detailed game.
Alan Ritchie
>> Anyhow, assuming 3 attacks, the Scorpion will kill the marine (1/2 x 1/2
>> x 1/3 = ) 1/12 of the time per attack. This works out to (1-[11/12^3]) a
>> net 23% chance in 3 attacks. Against a *normal* space marine. The Marine
>> will kill the Scorpion (1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 = ) 1/9 (or ~11%) of the time per
>> attack.
>>
>> If the Scorpion goes first, it will win 23% of the combats before the
>> Space Marine gets a shot. After 4 rounds of fighting, the Scorpion will
>> win 57% of the fights versus 21% for the space marine. How much does the
>> Scorpion cost compared with the basic space marine?
>
> The *SAME*. That is why he is a close combat specialist. He wins in
> close combat.
>
But a 1 vs 1 fight is hugely unlikely, so you should account for the
possibility of one scorpion killing more than one marine. At 3 attacks
each, 4 scorps kill one marine. At 4 attacks, 3 scorps kill one marine.
The suriving normal marines get 1 attack each at 1/9 chance of a kill, so
three or 4 scorps can be expected to draw a single round of combat with 10
marines. Now marines are hard to rout, as they should be, but ignoring
morale, scorps should wipe out an equal number of marines in 4 rounds of
combat, or 2 turns. Even if the marines are inflicting some casualties,
they rarely win a combat, and always run the risk of being routed and
destroyed completely.
Hardrock Llewynyth
of Our Lord, Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:56:14 GMT:
>So in their best year, the GW stores still lost money at the end of the day.
You'd think that they've have learned something from the complete and
total failure of the Wizards of the Coast Game Center and retail shops
failures.
--
Many desire to kill me, and many wish to spend an hour chatting with me.
The law protects me from the former. --Karl Kraus
donovan...@yahoo.com
Alan Ritchie wrote:
> "John Hwang" <JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
> news:0ILzg.4166$cj7.3327@trnddc01...
> > Ty wrote:
> But a 1 vs 1 fight is hugely unlikely, so you should account for the
> possibility of one scorpion killing more than one marine.
Context is important for sure, and missing from a lot of these
examples.
At 3 attacks
> each, 4 scorps kill one marine. At 4 attacks, 3 scorps kill one marine.
> The suriving normal marines get 1 attack each at 1/9 chance of a kill, so
> three or 4 scorps can be expected to draw a single round of combat with 10
> marines. Now marines are hard to rout, as they should be, but ignoring
> morale, scorps should wipe out an equal number of marines in 4 rounds of
> combat, or 2 turns. Even if the marines are inflicting some casualties,
> they rarely win a combat, and always run the risk of being routed and
> destroyed completely.
To be fair to 40K in relation to other games, maybe picking Space
Marines as the example is a poor choice. Regardless of how many people
take them, there's just no real comparison in historicals.
So here's 10 Stormtroopers (modern elite infantry with excellent body
armor) vs 10 IG (modern steady infantry). The Stormtroopers are assault
troops in the modern meaning, but lets see. (I'm not looking at the
Codex, but close enough to illustrate)
Assuming the APC or another unit puts in one round of prep fire: 2 dead
IG
Storms assault: 18 trooper attacks, 4 vet sgt attacks
IG defends: 7 trooper attacks, 2 sgt attacks
(Simultaneous combat due to initiative or use of frags)
Storms kill ~4 IG, IG kills ~1
IG outnumbered 2-1 and under 50%, fails leadership test, breaks, is run
down.
Combat over in 0.5 turns (1 round of HtH)
If the Stormies has fired their weapons at close range they would've
actually done better with their 'armor piercing' assault rifles.
For Fantasy/WH Historicals
20 halberdiers (A)
vs
20 halberdiers (B)
halberdiers (A) gaining the charge (initiative) and goes first
(A) 5+1 halberd attacks: 3 hit, 2 wound: 2 dead
(B) 3+1 halberd attacks: 2 hit, 1.333 wound: 1.333 dead (say 1)
Combat res: (A) Caused 2 wounds, 4 ranks, standard: +6
Combat res: (B) caused 1 wound, 3 ranks, standard: +4
(B) takes a break test at -2 (Leadership 5), fails, and routes.
(17 dice rolled, in 5 batches. Yahtzee veteran not breaking a sweat
here).
Even if they pass their test due to the general or a battle standard,
they're likely to lose the following rounds of combat due to the
initial loss of initiative, and will statistically speaking break now,
or very soon...or the vagaries of fate (dice) could perpetuate a
valiant stand to the last man, or even a victory.
*Every* wargame worth it's salt has die rolling/luck to some extent.
Play a game of chess with d6 versus d6 to take a piece, add +1 to the
roll of the higher rank piece, and +2 and tie wins to the attacking
piece. I'll bet you statistically get the same results as regular
chess, but it's more characteful and fun ;o)
---
Roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save:
---
As Ty mentioned, it's hard to reduce the die roll count for 40K
(&Fantasy) if you're going to stick to the stats etc. already in place.
I don't have a problem with this. Here's why:
Roll to hit: Reflects skill in shooting, or skill vs. skill in HtH
Roll to wound: reflects strength of weapon and/or attacker in relation
to toughness of target
Roll to save: Takes into account armor, force fields, dodges, magic
bubbles, whatever.
With historicals in a set period (i.e. very similar units with nothing
new coming really) or a reduced scale game where say a regiment is one
or a few stands, you can distill all of that info down into a CAF.
Warmachine went with stat cards. I hate stat cards.
With the diversity in races and options in an effectively 1:1 scale
sci-fi or fantasy wargame, it'd make a damned dull game if all the
little tweaks or peculiarities weren't accounted for, and the current
system does this in a way that say upgrading a unit's light armor to
heavy armor and shield has a definite, but not world shattering impact
on the game. This *almost* RPG element is IMO what allows the
"Warhammer" family to operate from skirmish level up to grand
engagement (thousands of points per side). If anything, this is the one
thing, with adaptation, I'd willing to incorporate into any wargame, or
even an RPG-lite.
You'd have to come up with an exceedingly cunning plan to change my
mind on that, but I'm willing to listen to new ideas.
---
Overall
---
In general, without making huge changes to the game, I think breaking
up the strict Igo-Ugo structure of the warhammer family would be a good
thing although I would still want each unit to be self-directing and
not sit idle like morons for turns in a row due to lack of characters
(HQs may be a bonus though). The simplest thing I can think of at the
moment is simply taking turns moving or shooting, etc.but this would
screw up declaring charges, flanking, assaults, the two turns of HtH,
etc. and probably require markers. I also like the *idea* of
overwatch/hold, but am leary of it's implementation. This is something
I'm all ears on.
Ty
> Ty wrote:
>> Yes, but the shooting system is at least as undeadly in most cases.
> Hehe. You've never played against an AP-heavy army. My Eldar typically
> fielded 2 full squads of AP3 Reapers, backed by 4 AP2 Cannons. My
> shooting was quite deadly.
Well of course heavy weapons will perform better. And if every soldier can
carry a heavy weapon, then I suppose that this would weaken my argument. Of
course, every soldier can't carry a heavy weapon...
>> And you only shoot once.
> Multi-shot weapons close the gap in a big way.
Not really. Two Space Marines blasting at one another with bolters -- (2/3 x
1/2 x 1/3 =) 1/9 chance of a kill per shot. 2 shots -- 21% chance of a kill.
Still takes each one an average of 4-5 turns to score a kill.
>> Yes, power weapons can improve the close combat system from "horrible" to
>> "marginal". Hence my prediction that they will effectively become
>> universal in the near future in WH40K. Without them, close combat sucks.
> 40k prefers to have masses of dice, or special rules (Rending) to smaller
> numbers of power weapons. It's actually OK, because basic Marines
> slugging it out is pretty rare. Usually, somebody brings a Power Weapon
> or Power Fist to speed things along.
In any case, the probabilities result in a painfully drawn out game.
>> Of course, I'd have simply ignored armor in close combat from the
>> beginning. That is, if someone chopped my head open with a spade and
>> removed 2/3 of my brain and then put me in charge of GW game design...
> It's alright.
>> Yes. An early draft of mine combined armor and toughness into one rating.
>> However, this was difficult to get to work -- remember, my game has to be
>> able to use existing WH40K ratings -- and at the end of the day did not
>> produce a good enough result.
> To hit: roll S vs T, re-roll based on BS.
> To save: roll Sv, re-roll based on cover.
Examples, please.
>> Only if you like slogging away for 1/3 to 1/2 the game in melee. I don't.
> I would like 2-turns average so that combined assaults are possible,
> rather than just steamrollering thru.
Not me.
>>> Not so. Eldar Banshees & Scorpions are an even match. Genestealers
>>> PWNZOR.
>> I think that you're mistaken -- unless you give them power weapons.
> I think you don't know the math.
The odds of a kill in 40K are quite easy to figure: (Chance of Hitting) x
(Chance of Wounding) x (Chance of Getting Past Armor).
If you see a flaw in my calculations, feel free to enlighten me.
> Banshees have PWs, and Scorps have the Attacks and Save to give Marines a
> run for the money.
<shrug> When I wrote that, I didn't have the Eldar book with me. If the
basic Banshees have power weapons, then yes, this would dramatically improve
their effectiveness. I have calculated the Scorpion correctly, I think.
>>>> Here's the math. My books aren't handy so I may be a little off. Assume
>>>> an alien close combat troop (WS4, S3, T3, Sv5+)
>>> That is NOT even a decent a close combat troop. It is barely a 10-pt
>>> Ork.
>> I believe that I was comparing the close combat troops of the Dark
>> Eldar -- a buddy uses them. But no matter.
> Ahh, OK. Dark Eldar Warriors are utter crap in HtH, and that's why they
> cost half as much as a Marine. Dark Eldar Wyches are close combat troops,
> and quite decent.
>>> A Scorpion is WS4 S4 A3 I5 Sv3+. A Banshee is WS4 S3 A2 I5+ Sv4+ that
>>> *negates* the Marine's good Sv3+. Either Eldar CC Aspect is a fair
>>> match against a Marine.
>> How does the striking scorpion get 3 attacks? My reference sheet says 1
>> attack, adding 1 for close combat weapons is 2 attacks, isn't it?
> Plus effectively 1 for Mandiblasters.
I see.
>> My analysis does not include charge bonuses because either side can
>> charge into close combat.
> He effectively has *4* on the charge.
I don't see that this affects the analysis.
I have never said that *every* 40K fight is defective. Obviously, in any
system with dozens of troop types, you can cherry pick matchups that make
the system look almost adequate.
But I think that the math is pretty clear and for those of us who don't care
for close combats that drag on and on, I think there are far better ways to
go.
>> Anyhow, assuming 3 attacks, the Scorpion will kill the marine (1/2 x 1/2
>> x 1/3 = ) 1/12 of the time per attack. This works out to (1-[11/12^3]) a
>> net 23% chance in 3 attacks. Against a *normal* space marine. The Marine
>> will kill the Scorpion (1/2 x 2/3 x 1/3 = ) 1/9 (or ~11%) of the time per
>> attack.
>> If the Scorpion goes first, it will win 23% of the combats before the
>> Space Marine gets a shot. After 4 rounds of fighting, the Scorpion will
>> win 57% of the fights versus 21% for the space marine. How much does the
>> Scorpion cost compared with the basic space marine?
> The *SAME*. That is why he is a close combat specialist. He wins in
> close combat.
Fair enough. Then I would say that the Scorpion is reasonably balanced vis a
vis the basic Space Marine. But let's compare the 9pt Ork Slugga Boyz -- 15
pt basic Marine kills them (1/2 x 1/2 x 5/6 =) 5/24 of the time per attack
(20%). They kill the Marine (1/2 x 1/3 x 1/3=) 1/18 of the time per attack,
or 10% of the time with 2 attacks. After 4 rounds, the Space Marine will win
53% of the fights and the Ork 21% of the time.
The Ork is a close combat troop that costs 60% of the basic Space Marine.
Yet the Ork is only 40% as good as the Space Marine -- in the Ork's
specialty.
Oh, and about half the fights will last more than 2 rounds. A quarter of
them will go 4 rounds.
> And if there is a Farseer nearby to re-roll Scorpion saves, or a
> Starcannon AGP to whittle the Marines down a bit (as there should).
> Properly supported, Scorpions should always win against Marines.
Again, you keep adding special cases to the hypothetical. If your objective
is to cherry pick fights to somehow prove that a clearly defective system
can work some of the time, please don't bother. No one has disputed that it
might work in certain examples.
>> Note that statistically, 47% of combats will last 3+ rounds. 33% will
>> last 4+ rounds. 22% will 5+ rounds. 15% will last 6+ rounds. Ick.
> This is OK.
Sorry, but I flatly disagree. I think that a game that will have close
combats drag on forever sucks.
And given the precipitous plunge in GW's sales -- and my own anectdotal
observation that folks seem to be avoiding playing 40K -- I think that there
are many who agree with me.
> If it takes that long, other units will pile in for the finish. Combined
> arms and all that jazz.
Dull as a bucket of rocks and all that jazz.
>> The problem is the armor save. The statistics suggest that the armor save
>> is the most important variable in close combat.
> And that is why true CC troops have the means to negate those saves.
All of them? What about the Dark Eldar? What about my poor Slugga Boyz? Of
course, you'll also note that I predicted that soon, everyone will have
power weapons, since this is the only way to make the system perform to a
marginally adequate level.
>> Now this might be realistic -- historically, heavy armored infantry
>> tend to defeat lighter armed infantry (the Spartans vs the Persian
>> Immortals at Thermopylae for example). But the point value of the troops
>> should account for this.
> It does.
My Slugga Boyz?
The Dark Eldar?
>> And by the way, space marine close combat troops are even better, since
>> they get 2 attacks.
> They cost 22+ pts with Jump Packs. They are not so much better.
But what if they don't take Jump Packs?
>> In four rounds, against Scorpions (with 3 attacks), they win 25% of
>> combats vs the Scorpion winning 40%. If the Scorpions only have 2
>> attacks, the Marine wins 42% vs 38% for the Scorpion. The Banshee is
>> doomed.
> Nonsense. Point for point, both Scorpions and Banshee will absolutely
> *crush* Assault Marines in Jump Packs in HtH, assuming the Eldar player
> doesn't pop them with shooting for 22+ juicy VPs per kill...
Well, let's disregard the Jump Packs, since they are optional equipment. And
assuming that you have accurately described the capabilities (my Eldar book
has fallen into the Warp), then yes, I'd say that they *overmatch* the Space
Marines -- not an improvement.
The Scorpions cost the same as the Close Combat Space Marines. Yet they win
2/3 of the fights. Is this balanced?
The Banshees cost the same as well. They kill the Marines (1/2 x 1/3) = 1/6
of the time per attack and they strike first. The Marines kill her 1/6 of
the time per attack. In 4 rounds, she wins 56% of the fights and the Marine
wins 39%. Both are close combat troops, and both cost the same. Yet one wins
nearly 2/3 of the fights. Is this a sign of a well balanced game?
Sounds like a defective point value system to me -- as well as a crappy
close combat system. If you insist on equipping the Space Marines with Jump
Packs, the disparity is even more glaring.
>> In 4 rounds, the Marine wins 67% of the fights vs the Banshee winning
>> 25%. All examples assume the Eldar strike first, of course. How much do
>> Banshees cost compared to Space Marines?
> They cost the *same*, but your math is screwed, which is why the Banshees
> are actually slightly better. Scorpions, however are clearly better
> because...
Well, my data might be screwed, but the math is sound. If you disagree,
please specify what you think I've done wrong in the formula.
>> All else being equal, 3+ armor save will make a stand 50% better in close
>> combat than a stand with a 4+ save. 100% better than a stand with a 5+
>> save. 150% better than a stand with a 6+ save. Does that really seem
>> reasonable to you, given the description of the 40K world?
> Yes. I pay for Sv3+.
But you often don't pay enough for it. Your Scorpions (for instance) only
cost 66% more than Ork Slugga Boyz, but the Scorpion's armor save makes them
150% better.
> I bolster it further with a Farseer to make it re-rollable. When I go
> from 2/3 saves to 8/9 saves, you are simply *NOT* killing my Scorpions in
> HtH or with basic shooting.
You seem to be missing the point. I am not alleging that your precious Eldar
are too weak. Indeed, the math indicates that the Scorpions and Banshees may
be far too strong for their 15 points -- when compared with Space Marine
close combat troops costing the same.
And consider your Scorpion against my Slugga Boyz -- 15pts vs 9 pts.
The Scorpion kills the Ork (1/2 x 1/3 x 5/6 =) 1/6 per attack. That's a 42%
chance with all three attacks --and the Scorpion goes first. The Slugga Boyz
kill the Scorpion (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3=) 1/12 per attack. That's a 15% chance
with 2 attacks. The Scorpion wins a shocking 78% of the time after 4 rounds.
The Ork wins 16%. Yet the Ork costs 60% as much as the Scorpion. Does that
sound reasonable to you?
And this, of course, is my central point. Armor is the most relevant stat in
close combat. It is also apparently undervalued in the points system. And
don't get me started on the worthless 40K points system...
>> And do you really want nearly half the melees to consume 2 full turns --
>> 1/3 of the game?
> Only when he's attacking me. :)
> When I'm attacking him, I play combined arms to whittle things down before
> I engage in HtH, so *my* attacks should take 1 turn.
Well, I have better things to do with my time that fight through a poorly
designed kludge like this.
--Ty
Ty
news:%QSzg.77872$IU2....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> "Ty" <tybear...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> 2. Hold Fire. A stand that moves, but is eligible to fire may hold
>>>> fire. That means that the stand will fire in the enemy fire phase. The
>>>> fire is simultaneous, so the effects are assessed after all shooting.
> But does not stop opponents advancing from one block of cover to the next,
> without being caught in the open.
Well, that's why you also have overwatch. The three mechanics - hold fire,
overwatch and pivot - should be used together.
> My concern about the 40k2 overwatch was that we had problems determining
> where a unit actually was when it got shot at. Interupting the movement
> phase failed when models effectively teleport one by one to a new
> position. This solves one problem, but not the other.
Each model must trace a movement path. You interrupt along that path.
>> Yes, but the shooting system is at least as undeadly in most cases. And
>> you only shoot once. Anyhow, I bitterly object to a game that requires
>> 2-3 turns to resolve a melee. 1/3 to 1/2 of the game...
> Don't forget morale.
I didn't. It's just an externality that cuts both ways. The bottom line is
that the combat system requires an inordinate amount of time to achieve a
result. Of course, you can always mitigate this by concentrating a huge
amount of firepower. But that really doesn't affect the overall problem.
Indeed, it actually makes the game even less deadly overall. Assume a 10%
chance of a kill. If 10 guys shoot at 10 enemies, they are statistically
likely to kill more than one enemy. But if those 10 guys shoot at one enemy,
they will never kill more than one enemy soldier.
>> The FFB melee system is derived from other games I've designed, and
>> players have never complained about it, to my memory.
> No opportunity to counter charge?
Nope. It's assumed in the combat system.
> Rely only on large movement allowances and simultaneous movement?
No simultaneous movement. The good old ugoigo system -- but implemented far
more competently than GW did.
> I am not saying that it does not work, just that it is a substantial shift
> away from the current system,
Well, that's kinda the point. I believe that the current system is incapable
of doing the job. Nor do I think that it can be fixed. The problems are
systemic. Any attempt to fix one problem will invariably create a new
problem somewhere else. See, the game system was originally designed for
small numbers of fantasy skirmishers. It has been jury rigged to fit a
completely different type of game. A sensible designer looks at the type of
game he wants, then designs the rules accordingly. GW never did that. 40K
and WFB evolved over the years into something much different. Yet GW has
kept the same rules, which were really only adequate for the original 1983
Warhammer.
> rather than one where you could sensibly borrow some but not all rules.
What's the point? If I am right -- and I do play a game designer on TV --
the problem is systemic and cannot be fixed by changing a few rules.
Therefore, I am writing a new set of rules to play the kind of 40K game that
*I* want to play. To the extent your gaming tastes agree with mine, you'll
like the new rules. The reverse is true as well.
I am not trying to replace 40K -- at least not right now. I am producing a
game that I think will be much more satisfactory to many who are frustrated
by 40K's obtuseness. But I am not interested in trying to convert anyone to
my "true faith". I am merely going to design the game that *I* want to play.
> What I find interesting is that some of these suggestions are close to the
> old epic/space marine/titan legions ruleset, which predates 40k2. I do
> not think that the current 40k rules are ideal, but I think I can defend
> any of them on the grounds of speed, unpredictability (difficult terrain),
> or the search for a good, rather than realistic, game, but perhaps not for
> their elegance. But obviously we can always shift the balance in favour
> of a faster or more detailed game.
Well, I am shifting the balance in favor of a simpler, more elegant and
faster game. And one that lets you use reasonable real-world tactics that
would still be viable in the 40K universe as that universe is defined by GW.
FFB will be more detailed than Epic, of course. It will be less "detailed"
than 40K in the sense that there will be fewer stats to keep track of. But
since we use all the WH40K stats to derive the FFB stats, the detail is
still there -- it's just built in. And there will be far fewer fussy special
rules. Most of the effects of the special rules could have been implemented
without explicit special rules. A sign of lousy game design skills is the
"kitchen sink" approach of having a rule for everything.
--Ty
Ty
news:is00d25uuli5ng4ts...@4ax.com...
> Thus saith "Ty" <tybear...@sbcglobal.net> the Unworthy, in the year
> of Our Lord, Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:56:14 GMT:
>>So in their best year, the GW stores still lost money at the end of the
>>day.
> You'd think that they've have learned something from the complete and
> total failure of the Wizards of the Coast Game Center and retail shops
> failures.
Well, these idiots apparently couldn't figure out that the main advantage of
corporate owned stores is better pricing. In a world where Walmart dots the
landscape, I am shocked that this simple fact would go unnoticed.
--Ty
Ty
> To be fair to 40K in relation to other games, maybe picking Space
> Marines as the example is a poor choice. Regardless of how many people
> take them, there's just no real comparison in historicals.
I have *never* criticized Space Marines or 40K for a lack of historical
realism. My criticism has been based on game *design* flaws, such as:
--Unbalanced point values, especially with close combat troops. See my other
posts for that.
--Tedious and fussy rules.
--Close combat rules that result in what I consider to be unduly long and
drawn out fights.
--A system that punishes movement, so games are largely WWI style slugfests.
--No overwatch, allowing the worst aspects of the ugoigo system to emerge.
--Absurd targeting restrictions.
--Cumbersome and illogical squad firing rules.
I could go on (and on), but the point is made, I think. I am not claiming
40K is "unrealistic". Thus your historical examples are irrelevant to my
argument.
I am claiming that it is a poorly conceived and ineptly designed game. I
also believe that this is one major reason why GW sales are down. If the
rules suck, then eventually people will stop playing them. As there are no
current alternatives, these folks will stop buying the miniatures. I am
merely trying to offer an alternative to folks who are frustrated by the
weaknesses of 40K. If I succeed, then GW will benefit. After all, players
will still need their 40K army books to play FFB.
--Ty
Ty
news:5MPzg.1113156
> Alas poor Avalon Hill, will this be GW's fate?
Maybe. If my projections are right, they will be in deep financial trouble
next year. They have plenty of assets that they can use to collateralize
loans. If they leverage the company like that, they can survive for 3-4 more
years. But eventually, they will run out of money. At that time, they will
be vulnerable to a hostile takeover. Or, someone can simply buy the debt
from the banks and foreclose. GW's intellectual property and production
assets (molds, primarily) are valuable.
--Ty
Ward B.
> "Desert Lurker" wrote in message
>> Alas poor Avalon Hill, will this be GW's fate?
>
> Maybe. If my projections are right, they will be in deep financial trouble
> next year. They have plenty of assets that they can use to collateralize
> loans. If they leverage the company like that, they can survive for 3-4
> more years. But eventually, they will run out of money. At that time, they
> will be vulnerable to a hostile takeover. Or, someone can simply buy the
> debt from the banks and foreclose. GW's intellectual property and
> production assets (molds, primarily) are valuable.
GW's moldmaking tools are quite valuable. They recently spent several
million upgrading to a state of the art system that make it quicker and far
less expensive for them to cut molds. The new molds are high quality, and
this makes it practical to switch their entire line over to plastic minis.
This will have a big impact on their economic numbers. [There was an
article in a professional journal I get at work. I posted the link a couple
months ago. The first model made with the new tooling is the new Carnifex.]
That said, GW's leaders have made some obvious blunders recently. GW excels
at making miniatures. However, the on the business side of things, like
Avalon Hill, TSR and many others, they've got quite a bit to learn. I'm not
going to elaborate further along this line because Ty's already mentioned
most of the points.
--
- Ward
wardcb at earthlink dot net
All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to
criticism.
Ward B.
> "Hardrock Llewynyth" wrote
>> You'd think that they've have learned something from the complete and
>> total failure of the Wizards of the Coast Game Center and retail shops
>> failures.
>
> Well, these idiots apparently couldn't figure out that the main advantage
> of corporate owned stores is better pricing. In a world where Walmart dots
> the landscape, I am shocked that this simple fact would go unnoticed.
Beg your pardon, but I disagree with that. Wal-Mart is a successful model,
but hardly the only one. Just because they focus on cutting costs doesn't
mean there aren't other ways to get an advantage. Adding value is often a
much more profitable way to boost the bottom line than cutting cost. For
example, Circle-K's also dot the landscape despite having much higher prices
than Wal-Mart. [For those of you the other side of the pond, they're a
convenience store. Every gas station has one. Their prices are higher, but
you save considerable time. Shopping there is, well, convenient instead of
cheap.] And then there's the Nordstrom model... There are other ways to do
retail besides Wal-Mart's stack it deep and sell it cheap philosophy.
Interestingly, the local GW store [Glendale] is making some efforts to add
value. They're hosting tournaments, offering free painting and modeling
classes, and other such events. I'm not convinced these are *successful*
efforts, but they are at least trying to offer more than an independent
hobby shop. Mind you, the one good local hobby shop isn't carrying GW any
more... which brings us back to the question of why GW's trying to compete
with their own distributors in the first place! As I said, I'm not
convinced these are successful efforts.
Ty
news:tlZzg.8719$157....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Ty" wrote...
>> "Hardrock Llewynyth" wrote
>>> You'd think that they've have learned something from the complete and
>>> total failure of the Wizards of the Coast Game Center and retail shops
>>> failures.
>>
>> Well, these idiots apparently couldn't figure out that the main advantage
>> of corporate owned stores is better pricing. In a world where Walmart
>> dots the landscape, I am shocked that this simple fact would go
>> unnoticed.
>
> Beg your pardon, but I disagree with that. Wal-Mart is a successful
> model, but hardly the only one. Just because they focus on cutting costs
> doesn't mean there aren't other ways to get an advantage. Adding value is
> often a much more profitable way to boost the bottom line than cutting
> cost.
I should have been more explicit. Walmart's model of low prices is the only
applicable model that would work for GW. GW does not have a large enough
product range for selection to be an advantage for them. The GW store in the
Dallas area is underwhelming, quite frankly. Several local owned stores
match their selection.
I see no particular value add that GW stores can provide better than a
well-run and reasonably capitalized local hobby store.
> Interestingly, the local GW store [Glendale] is making some efforts to add
> value. They're hosting tournaments, offering free painting and modeling
> classes, and other such events. I'm not convinced these are *successful*
> efforts, but they are at least trying to offer more than an independent
> hobby shop.
Actually, my independent game store does all that. As do several in the
Dallas area. So I don't think that GW has any particular advantage in this
area.
> Mind you, the one good local hobby shop isn't carrying GW any more...
> which brings us back to the question of why GW's trying to compete with
> their own distributors in the first place! As I said, I'm not convinced
> these are successful efforts.
The numbers have convinced me that GW's management are setting the standard
for managerial ineptitude. Had GW remained a manufacturer and not tried to
do it all, they'd be making 3 times the profit they made in their best year,
even if sales declined to 2006 levels.
As I noted in my earlier post, GW simply paid a bunch of money -- maybe 3
times its best year's profit-- to replace income from local hobby stores
with the same or less net income from GW stores. The brilliance of that move
continues to elude me.
--Ty
Andy O'Neill
In SG2 anyone who isn't busy doing something else can shoot someone moves
into their LoS ( or is in sight but dashing as you can interrupt a move +
move even if they started off in sight ).
All the activity in a bound is taking place at pretty much the same time.
So an activated squad is intent on someone else or dashing or something and
not available to interrupt.
There's also a sort of special case as a unit moves into close combat.
If their variable movement doesn't get them into contact in the first move
the defender can get a "free" shot.
This is quite interesting for my purposes as in ww2 a lot of combat was at
surprisingly short ranges.
Infantry were largely conscripts and much more likely to keep their heads
down than shoot at someone hundreds of yards away.
When they start looking like they'll be getting close up and personal even
badly motivated infantry tended to to take more interest.
Anyhow.
It's a simple set of mechanics which works well and pretty much obviates all
that panzerbushing and stuff that Ty is on about.
You could probably nail it onto 40k, although my obvious preference would be
to just go for sg2.
--
Regards,
Andy O'Neill
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.htm
or, for no javascript and a faster load...
www.wargamer.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sitemap.htm
jockelinde
> "John Hwang" <JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
> news:0ILzg.4166$cj7.3327@trnddc01...
>> Ty wrote:
<snip>
>> I think you don't know the math.
>
> The odds of a kill in 40K are quite easy to figure: (Chance of Hitting) x
> (Chance of Wounding) x (Chance of Getting Past Armor).
>
> If you see a flaw in my calculations, feel free to enlighten me.
The problem isn't math, it's your data. The scorpions were missing
their mandiblasters, the banshees were missing their power weapons
and there are also missing pieces from the the slugga boyz below.
<snip>
> Fair enough. Then I would say that the Scorpion is reasonably balanced vis a
> vis the basic Space Marine. But let's compare the 9pt Ork Slugga Boyz -- 15
> pt basic Marine kills them (1/2 x 1/2 x 5/6 =) 5/24 of the time per attack
> (20%). They kill the Marine (1/2 x 1/3 x 1/3=) 1/18 of the time per attack,
Nope, the Slugga boy carries a choppa, which reduce saves to 4+.
> or 10% of the time with 2 attacks.
Nope, Slugga boyz are A2 *and* have two weapons, which gives them a
total of 3 attacks.
Expected number of Marine wounds caused by a Slugga boy:
3 x 1/2 x 1/3 x 1/2 = 1/4
The real Slugga boy is 9/4 = 2.25 times better in close combat
(versus basic marines) than the one in your example.
--
Joakim
Ty
news:slrned0s78...@crux.id.gu.se...
> In article <FJXzg.613$gY6...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, Ty wrote:
>>> I think you don't know the math.
>> The odds of a kill in 40K are quite easy to figure: (Chance of Hitting) x
>> (Chance of Wounding) x (Chance of Getting Past Armor).
>> If you see a flaw in my calculations, feel free to enlighten me.
> The problem isn't math, it's your data. The scorpions were missing
> their mandiblasters, the banshees were missing their power weapons
> and there are also missing pieces from the the slugga boyz below.
I think that must be what I meant when I said "[w]ell, my data might be
screwed, but the math is sound..."
>> Fair enough. Then I would say that the Scorpion is reasonably balanced
>> vis a
>> vis the basic Space Marine. But let's compare the 9pt Ork Slugga Boyz --
>> 15
>> pt basic Marine kills them (1/2 x 1/2 x 5/6 =) 5/24 of the time per
>> attack
>> (20%). They kill the Marine (1/2 x 1/3 x 1/3=) 1/18 of the time per
>> attack,
> Nope, the Slugga boy carries a choppa, which reduce saves to 4+.
Bugger. Teach me to try this from memory...
Then the Ork kills the marine 1/12 of the time. This does make him almost as
good as a standard Space Marine in close combat (with 3 attacks as you note
below). In 4 rounds, the Marine wins 46%, the Ork wins 40%. In fire combat,
the Marine kills the Ork (2/3 x 1/2) = 1/3 of the time per shot, or 5/9
(56%) with 2 shots. The Ork kills the Marine (1/3 x 1/2 x 1/3=) 1/18 (5.5%)
of the time. If the Ork is still, he gets 2 shots, which improves his chance
to ~11%.
Soooo. The Ork is slightly inferior to the Space Marine in close combat and
only 10-20% as effective in ranged combet. Yet he costs 60% of the Marine's
cost. 6 Marines vs 10 Slugga Boyz would be a pretty even fight, if the
Marines got 1 round of shooting. The Marines would get 12 shots and would
average killing 4 Orks. Then there would be 6 vs 6 and the Marines would
have a slight advantage. Of course, the Marines have much better Leadership
rating. But the Orks would win if the Marines didn't get a round of
shooting. So the points work okay in this case.
But the Ork is in real trouble against the close combat Marines -- which is
the real Apples to Apples comparison. They kill him 37% of the time per
round vs 23%. In 4 rounds, they win 68% of the fights, he wins 26%. And the
Marine is much better in fire combat -- he kills the Ork 33%/56% of the time
with 1/2 shots, while the Ork kills him 5.5%/11% of the time. Sooo....the
Ork is only 40% as good as the Marine in close combat and about 16% as good
as the Marine in ranged fire. Yet the Ork costs 60% of the Marine. That
sound right to you?
>> or 10% of the time with 2 attacks.
>
> Nope, Slugga boyz are A2 *and* have two weapons, which gives them a
> total of 3 attacks.
>
> Expected number of Marine wounds caused by a Slugga boy:
> 3 x 1/2 x 1/3 x 1/2 = 1/4
The math doesn't quite work that way. To determine the probability of at
least one kill with multiple shots, use the following equation:
1-((Chance of Not Killing) ^ X)
X is the number of attacks. So with 3 shots, 1/12 chance, the calculation is
1-((11/12)^3) = 23%. The variance from your method increases as the number
of shots increase.
> The real Slugga boy is 9/4 = 2.25 times better in close combat
> (versus basic marines) than the one in your example.
Well, he's not quite as good as normal Space Marine (40% vs 46%) in close
combat. He is far worse in ranged fire. And he is utterly outclassed by the
close combat Space Marine -- only about 40% as good in close combat and 20%
as good in ranged combat, yet he costs 60% the cost of the Space Marine.
Against the Eldar Scorpion, it's worse. In close combat, the Scorpion's will
kill the Ork 46% of the time 3 attacks, but goes first. The Ork will kill
the Eldar 33% of the time per 3 attacks, if he survives. In 4 rounds, the
Eldar wins 77% of the time vs the Ork's 22%. The Ork kills the Scorpion in
ranged fire (1/3 x 2/3 x 1/3=) 2/27 of the time per shot. The Eldar kills
the Ork (2/3 x 1/2=) 1/3 of the time. The Ork is less than 25% as effective
in close combat, and about 20% as effective in ranged combat, yet he costs
costs 60% of the Eldar's cost. That seem reasonable to you?
<shrug>
I appreciate you correcting my data. But the revised data does not
materially change my point.
--Ty
Ty
> Against the Eldar Scorpion, it's worse. In close combat, the Scorpion's
> will kill the Ork 46% of the time 3 attacks, but goes first. The Ork will
> kill the Eldar 33% of the time per 3 attacks, if he survives. In 4 rounds,
> the Eldar wins 77% of the time vs the Ork's 22%. The Ork kills the
> Scorpion in ranged fire (1/3 x 2/3 x 1/3=) 2/27 of the time per shot. The
> Eldar kills the Ork (2/3 x 1/2=) 1/3 of the time. The Ork is less than 25%
> as effective in close combat, and about 20% as effective in ranged combat,
> yet he costs costs 60% of the Eldar's cost. That seem reasonable to you?
>
> <shrug>
>
> I appreciate you correcting my data. But the revised data does not
> materially change my point.
Well...maybe I spoke too soon. I rechecked my spreadsheet and found an
error. Instead of inputting the chance per attack, I input the net chance
with all attacks. This exaggerated the Eldar's performance. The Eldar wins
74% to the Ork's 24% over 4 rounds. So the Ork is about 1/3 as effective as
the Eldar in close combat and 20% as effective in ranged fire, yet costs
60%. Not as bad as I first thought, but pretty lousy.
--Ty
Jim M
tybear...@sbcglobal.net says...
> The odds of a kill in 40K are quite easy to figure: (Chance of Hitting) x
> (Chance of Wounding) x (Chance of Getting Past Armor).
>
> If you see a flaw in my calculations, feel free to enlighten me.
>
>
>
deadly the weapons are that are used in combat, yet you have to roll to
hit and then roll again to wound once you have finally determed that
your uber weapon has actually found a target, your oponent gets to save
against it.
I have always been of the opinion that a much quicker game could be
played by removing the roll to wound. Of course the result would be a
much deadlier game and the importance of instant kill weapons would go
up rather quickly...
Jim M
tybear...@sbcglobal.net says...
> > Beg your pardon, but I disagree with that. Wal-Mart is a successful
> > model, but hardly the only one. Just because they focus on cutting costs
> > doesn't mean there aren't other ways to get an advantage. Adding value is
> > often a much more profitable way to boost the bottom line than cutting
> > cost.
>
> I should have been more explicit. Walmart's model of low prices is the only
> applicable model that would work for GW. GW does not have a large enough
> product range for selection to be an advantage for them. The GW store in the
> Dallas area is underwhelming, quite frankly. Several local owned stores
> match their selection.
>
>
on some items, across the board you can find many of the things the sell
cheaper elsewhere. A few weeks ago I was shopping for a small air
conditioning unit, and ended up purchasing one at WM for under $100, it
was a 110 volt model, if I had waqnted one that used 220v their prices
where about the same or even slightly higher then other places I
checked. THe same holds true with small appliances, they will always
have one at a price that is hard to beat, but for the better quality
ones, there is little or no difference in the pricing. In the Grocery
section Meat is generally higher at my Local Wal*Mart then at H.E.B.
Jim M
tybear...@sbcglobal.net says...
> I am claiming that it is a poorly conceived and ineptly designed game. I
> also believe that this is one major reason why GW sales are down. If the
> rules suck, then eventually people will stop playing them. As there are no
> current alternatives, these folks will stop buying the miniatures. I am
> merely trying to offer an alternative to folks who are frustrated by the
> weaknesses of 40K. If I succeed, then GW will benefit. After all, players
> will still need their 40K army books to play FFB.
>
>
into one little problem that has put me off purchasing any of their new
miniatures. The prices are just to damned high for me to fool with it
anymore. GW has literally priced themselves out of my budget. So I am
turning that money to alternative hobbies and past times.
Ty
news:MPG.1f3a5042b...@news.east.earthlink.net...
You and apparently about 30% of their market over the last two years. Still,
you have to admire GW management's sticktoitiveness. Let's see...economists
agree that raising prices decreases demand. GW is suffering from a 30% drop
in demand over the last 2 years...
Well, once you think about it, raising prices each year is such an obvious
solution to a drop in demand. About the only way to improve the strategery
would be to start discounting over the internet and GWstores, or cut dealer
margins again. I'm sure that the most effective way to make local hobby
stores want to carry more GW product is reduce the profit they get...
Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius.
--Ty
Ty
> This is where the GW games have always annoyed me, they talk about how
> deadly the weapons are that are used in combat, yet you have to roll to
> hit and then roll again to wound once you have finally determed that
> your uber weapon has actually found a target, your oponent gets to save
> against it.
This has multiple die roll fetish has another pernicious effect. Because at
least 2 die rolls are needed and because a 1 fails on both rolls (1 or 2 on
the WS hit chart), this means that no matter how powerful the weapon, and
weak the target, there's a maximum chance to kill of 70% per ranged attack.
Close combat is even worse -- a 55% chance maximum.
If the target get's an armor save, the chance drops by about 12% per point
of save for ranged attacks and about 9% per point of save for melee attacks.
So a Bloodthirster only has a 55% of killing a gretchen per attack (unless
there are some special rules I'm unaware of). <scratches head> I
dunno...shouldn't the Bloodthirster be able to slaughter more than an
average of 2.5 gretchen per close combat?
For that matter, shouldn't a heavy bolter...the 41st century's equivalent of
a heavy machinegun...be more lethal? If an Imperial Guardsman fires it at an
unarmored human, the chance to kill is (1/2 x 2/3=) 1/6 per shot. With 3
shots, the weapon has less than a 50% chance of killing one unarmored human.
The weapon must blaze away for 2 turns on average to kill 1 unarmored man.
This seem right to you?
FFB will address these concerns.
--Ty
FunkyD
Ty wrote:
> For that matter, shouldn't a heavy bolter...the 41st century's equivalent of
> a heavy machinegun...be more lethal? If an Imperial Guardsman fires it at an
> unarmored human, the chance to kill is (1/2 x 2/3=) 1/6 per shot. With 3
> shots, the weapon has less than a 50% chance of killing one unarmored human.
> The weapon must blaze away for 2 turns on average to kill 1 unarmored man.
> This seem right to you?
For the life of me, I tried to steer clear of this thread, but my math
degree is rearing it's ugly head.
1. An unarmored human is T3, not T4 (you are confusing them with the
super-powerful marines)
2. 1/2 x 2/3 <> 1/6. 1/2 x 2/3 = 1/3
3. Even IF the chance were 1/6 per shot, you follow with "the weapon
has less than a 50% chance..." 3/6 is not less than 50%.
Corrected calculations show the heavy bolter will kill ..
3 x 1/2 x 5/6 = 1.25 each turn, with enough power that even the best
guard stormtrooper armor won't help a bit.
D
Pavane
short term boost is their 7th edition release of Warhammer, which every
player will have to purchase. One can only speculate on an unreleased
product, but statements from GW and those that have reviewed the sample
copy at various Games Days lead me to conclude that it is really a 6.5
edition. Apparently many of the known flaws stand uncorrected, or have
been relegated to a distant army book fix. A prime example is the
unbalanced hand weapon & shield bonus. Let's face it, GW only wants
incremental changes to the game system and provides a pathetic attempt
at resolving poorly written or conflicting rules given their resources.
I'm one of the 30% they lost a couple of years back. For less than the
cost of a boxed "regiment" of Empire knights, I can purchase an entire
15mm DBA army. I will purchase the new rulebook in the U.S. so that I
don't get stung by the Canadian list price, and refrain from purchasing
every other race's army book as I have done in the past. They have
lost me as a customer, except that I will purchase only that which is
necessary for my "investment" to remain current.
donovan...@yahoo.com
the rules as well as alternatives. Call me devil's advocate if you
will.
Ty wrote:
> <donovan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > To be fair to 40K in relation to other games, maybe picking Space
> > Marines as the example is a poor choice. Regardless of how many people
> > take them, there's just no real comparison in historicals.
>
> I have *never* criticized Space Marines or 40K for a lack of historical
> realism. My criticism has been based on game *design* flaws, such as:
I was more referring to how the example of Marines vs Scorpions was
akin to Superhero vs. Superhero, and we know how those fights go on. I
used the Stormtroopers vs regular army types to show how the assault
troops do tend to crush regulars.
> --Unbalanced point values, especially with close combat troops. See my other
> posts for that.
Individually, yes. In context to the list though? An Abrams in an
American army would be cheaper than one in an Iraqi insurgent army.
> --Tedious and fussy rules.
Yeah, there's that. To be fair, they have made improvements w/ V4.
> --Close combat rules that result in what I consider to be unduly long and
> drawn out fights.
I think this is a YMMV point. In games such as moderns and horse/musket
where the two sides are at least considering taking prisoners I would
agree with you, as soon as one side feels they've no chance they throw
their hands up or leg it. Hell sometimes they'd break off just by the
threat of a charge/assault. 40K strikes me as a game where the
combatants will fight rather than flee, and when immovable object meets
irresistable force you get the drawn out engagements. As for
fantasy/WAB I have no problems with the combat res as it's usually
pretty quick when it should be.
> --A system that punishes movement, so games are largely WWI style slugfests.
Elaborate? I play Imperial Guard among others, and V4 has done the
exact opposite of keeping me static. If you're referring to the heavy
weapons not being able to fire when the unit moves, I used to think it
was stupid as well.
> --No overwatch, allowing the worst aspects of the ugoigo system to emerge.
I'm in total agreement, but definitely don't want to play V2 again (had
overwatch that got retarded). What kind of penalties are we talking
about for overwatch fire vs. directed fire?
> --Absurd targeting restrictions.
Elaborate? Shoot at closest unit or take a leadership test?
> --Cumbersome and illogical squad firing rules.
Elaborate? I recall you saying something about heavy weapons not being
able to target seperately from the squad.
In V2, IG could detach hvy wep teams to provide covering fire but that
introduced new rules.
I would like to be able to have one unit brew up an APC, then mow down
the survivors with small arms, but I would frown upon a squad HW firing
on one unit while the riflemen target another unless it's a disparity
of targets i.e. a lascannon shoots a tank while the riflemen fire on
infantry.
Off the top of my head, consider the HW to be the backbone of the unit,
and the sgt, loader, and HW gunner fire at one target (sgt directs
fire, loader loads, gunner shoots), while the squad can either fire
normally at the same target, or "initiative fire" at the closest target
withing 12"/rapid fire range.
> I could go on (and on), but the point is made, I think. I am not claiming
> 40K is "unrealistic". Thus your historical examples are irrelevant to my
> argument.
That was completely not my point. As above, I was referring to your
example of basically knights in full plate duking it out with
broadswords. I used the human vs. human for better comparison to other
systems, as they all tend to use humans as a baseline.
> I am claiming that it is a poorly conceived and ineptly designed game. I
> also believe that this is one major reason why GW sales are down. If the
> rules suck, then eventually people will stop playing them. As there are no
> current alternatives, these folks will stop buying the miniatures. I am
> merely trying to offer an alternative to folks who are frustrated by the
> weaknesses of 40K. If I succeed, then GW will benefit. After all, players
> will still need their 40K army books to play FFB.
And I fully support you in your efforts, as I'm sure anyone would.
Because of that I don't want you going off at half cock and rewriting
rules that may not be quite what you think.
For example, you streamline CC so that any specialist HtH troops plough
over any "regulars", and introduce overwatch. You get your wish of fast
combat res, and no panzebushing, but as people play it it turns into
WW1 as armies become either fast HtH or static shooting armies entirely
(just like V3 that penalized movement for shooting armies and awarded
closing into combat but worse).
Also, I think that you're like me in that you like to see a clear cut
victory at the end of a game. I get that from you mentioning how 2
rounds of combat is bad because it's 1/3 of the game. The restricted
turn limit thing really is a cut off for VPs and scenarios, which is
fine by me, but I have never actaully stopped at 6 turns except when
tables were limited. A few extra turns to allow a true victory for one
side doesn't take long and by turn 8 you *really* know who won, as well
as allowing more maneuvering etc.
Ty
news:1154524251.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Ty wrote:
>> For that matter, shouldn't a heavy bolter...the 41st century's equivalent
>> of
>> a heavy machinegun...be more lethal? If an Imperial Guardsman fires it at
>> an
>> unarmored human, the chance to kill is (1/2 x 2/3=) 1/6 per shot. With 3
>> shots, the weapon has less than a 50% chance of killing one unarmored
>> human.
>> The weapon must blaze away for 2 turns on average to kill 1 unarmored
>> man.
>> This seem right to you?
>
> For the life of me, I tried to steer clear of this thread, but my math
> degree is rearing it's ugly head.
Given that my mistakes were of the 4th grade math variety, your math degree
is probably overkill... :-)
> 1. An unarmored human is T3, not T4 (you are confusing them with the
> super-powerful marines)
Actually, the problem is simpler. I wrote the email to early in the morning
and simply miscalculated. 1/2 chance of hit x 2/3 chance of wounding (S4 vs
T3) = 1/3 chance of killing, not 1/6.
With three shots, the odds are [1-((2/3)^3)] = 61% chance of a kill with 3
shots (if fired at a single target). Now, the most efficient way is to fire
at more than one target. With 3 shots at 1/3, you'll kill 1.33 per burst on
average.
This is still an underwhelming performance for a machinegun. Hard to
recreate the carnage at the Somme with such weapons.
> 2. 1/2 x 2/3 <> 1/6. 1/2 x 2/3 = 1/3
> 3. Even IF the chance were 1/6 per shot, you follow with "the weapon
> has less than a 50% chance..." 3/6 is not less than 50%.
But 3/6 isn't the chance. If the weapon is fired at a single target, the
chance of at least 1 kill is:
1 - (chance of no kill) ^ # shots
> Corrected calculations show the heavy bolter will kill ..
> 3 x 1/2 x 5/6 = 1.25 each turn, with enough power that even the best
> guard stormtrooper armor won't help a bit.
Again, hard to recreate the carnage of machineguns past.
--Ty
Jim M
tybear...@sbcglobal.net says...
> "Jim M" <hnjc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f3a4c39f...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> > This is where the GW games have always annoyed me, they talk about how
> > deadly the weapons are that are used in combat, yet you have to roll to
> > hit and then roll again to wound once you have finally determed that
> > your uber weapon has actually found a target, your oponent gets to save
> > against it.
>
> This has multiple die roll fetish has another pernicious effect. Because at
> least 2 die rolls are needed and because a 1 fails on both rolls (1 or 2 on
> the WS hit chart), this means that no matter how powerful the weapon, and
> weak the target, there's a maximum chance to kill of 70% per ranged attack.
> Close combat is even worse -- a 55% chance maximum.
>
> If the target get's an armor save, the chance drops by about 12% per point
> of save for ranged attacks and about 9% per point of save for melee attacks.
>
> So a Bloodthirster only has a 55% of killing a gretchen per attack (unless
> there are some special rules I'm unaware of). <scratches head> I
> dunno...shouldn't the Bloodthirster be able to slaughter more than an
> average of 2.5 gretchen per close combat?
>
I used 30 Gretchin to effectively immobilize and render useless a
Wraithlord a few years back...
> For that matter, shouldn't a heavy bolter...the 41st century's equivalent of
> a heavy machinegun...be more lethal? If an Imperial Guardsman fires it at an
> unarmored human, the chance to kill is (1/2 x 2/3=) 1/6 per shot. With 3
> shots, the weapon has less than a 50% chance of killing one unarmored human.
> The weapon must blaze away for 2 turns on average to kill 1 unarmored man.
> This seem right to you?
>
This is precisely what I was talking about, now take out the roll to
wound and see what kind of casualties you get.
> FFB will address these concerns.
>
I look forward to checking it out... If I lived a little closer to
Dallas I would say lets get together and play a few games...
John Hwang
> Well, these idiots apparently couldn't figure out that the main advantage of
> corporate owned stores is better pricing. In a world where Walmart dots the
> landscape, I am shocked that this simple fact would go unnoticed.
1 "official" corporate store is enough, for marketing purposes.
--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
John Hwang
> Sounds rather like LOTR's Heroic Move/Combat. It's your turn but I spend
> a CP (Will I think.) and my hero and all my guys within x" get to
> move/fight too.
IMO, this is too powerful.
Warmachine Feats are better-balanced.
John Hwang
> "John Hwang" <JohnHw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote ...
>> Ty wrote:
>>> How much does the
>>> Scorpion cost compared with the basic space marine?
>>
>> The *SAME*. That is why he is a close combat specialist.
>> He wins in close combat.
>
> But a 1 vs 1 fight is hugely unlikely, so you should account for the
> possibility of one scorpion killing more than one marine.
Totally agreed. And it should also be matched points to measure
effectiveness.
> Even if the marines are inflicting some casualties,
> they rarely win a combat, and always run the risk of
> being routed and destroyed completely.
Which is how GW avoids the issue of basic fights going "too long".
John Hwang
> To be fair to 40K in relation to other games, maybe picking Space
> Marines as the example is a poor choice.
It is.
Particularly focusing on basic Marines and ignoring upgrades.
Basic Marines are only good for surviving, and Ty's numbers bear this out.
> Roll to hit: Reflects skill in shooting, or skill vs. skill in HtH
> Roll to wound: reflects strength of weapon and/or attacker in relation
> to toughness of target
> Roll to save: Takes into account armor, force fields, dodges, magic
> bubbles, whatever.
I prefer to think of 2 events: roll attack, roll defense.
> Warmachine went with stat cards. I hate stat cards.
It's OK, only because Warmachine game scale is small.
donovan...@yahoo.com
John Hwang wrote:
> donovan...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I prefer to think of 2 events: roll attack, roll defense.
>
I have no problem with this in most cases. I prefer it in games using
stands of troops vs. individually based models but that's me.
> > Warmachine went with stat cards. I hate stat cards.
>
> It's OK, only because Warmachine game scale is small.
I do appreciate the fact that they sell the cards seperate from the
models, and at a reasonable price ($5 for an entire faction I think?).
I still think either IK itself, or gamers themselves will start a trend
of large scale battles in the future.