GW sales down

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
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

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?
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

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...

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

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.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

Peter Pradelski wrote:

> 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 "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI.RemoveThis@cs.com.no.com> wrote in
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.
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

Chipacabra wrote:
> John Hwang <JohnHwangCSI.DeleteThis@cs.com.no.com> wrote :
>> 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.

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.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

>>
>> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

>
> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI RemoveThis @cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
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
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

"John Hwang" <JohnHwangCSI.TakeThisOut@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:G9Ezg.7059$j9.2491@trnddc02...
> 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
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

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.

--
--- John Hwang "JohnHwang...@cs.com.no.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down 

In article <G9Ezg.7059$j9.2491@trnddc02>, JohnHwangCSI.DeleteThis@cs.com.no.com
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.
 >> Stay informed about: GW sales down