PDA

View Full Version : Age of Sigmar Worked on Me!



SlowingCoyote
09-07-2015, 20:43
Up until recently I only played 40k, Dark Eldar to be specific. The other day I was in my local GW, just perusin' and chatting about Arkham Knight, when one of the guys asked me and another customer if we'd played Age of Sigmar yet. We both said no, and so we both sat down for a demo game. All the worries people are having seem pretty unfounded, and WHFB must of been really, really fun, because I had an absolute BLAST with Age of Sigmar, even though I was crushed by the other guy. I immediately proceeded to buy some Vampire Counts Skeleton Warriors, because hey, I play Dark Eldar!

So what I'm saying is that Age of Sigmar, and it's more accessible size and rules, seems to hook new Fantasy players, and it's really fun.

Ghachii
09-07-2015, 21:00
Good for you! I'm enjoying the positivity. I've been inspired to start a wee Nurgle army on the assumption that, whatever happens in the future, Nurgle is going to stay pretty much the same in terms of aesthetic and flavour. I'm planning to convert a Skaven Plagueclaw Catapult with a nurgling crew. 'Nurgle' keyword for the win! Fun times! :)

And a skeleton is a skeleton, so I imagine you're pretty safe with your choice too.

SteveW
09-07-2015, 21:02
More accessible size? Are you trolling? I used to run at 2500 points almost every game, I now have to field close to 6-7k(or what would have been) to compete with what the other guy is bringing.

MagicAngle
09-07-2015, 21:10
I'm genuinely pleased to hear this, Mr Coyote. Let's hope there are a lot more of you out there to plug the gap caused by the mass exodus of the game's player base.

Lord Dan
09-07-2015, 21:12
and WHFB must of been really, really fun

It was.

...

:cries:

HurrDurr
09-07-2015, 21:13
Here lies SlowingCoyote, a good heart but was too slow, the sales trick he couldn't know. The salesman was fast, he could not last. You shall be missed. How many good warhamers will Age of Sigmar claim?

Tidings
09-07-2015, 21:16
This is good to hear. I'm still on the fence because I loved WFB, but if the goal of AoS is to get more people into the fantasy game then I'm glad to hear it's working!

-Tidings

BramGaunt
09-07-2015, 21:16
Maybe play with someone who isn't a dick? That should fix your problem there.

Maybe play something that has any resemblance of rules?

Ghachii
09-07-2015, 21:20
Maybe play something that has any resemblance of rules?

AoS has rules. Just far fewer than you're used to I would guess. I have trouble remembering my age half the time which, given the size of the WFB rulebook (along with the number of minis required) was always the biggest barrier to me actually playing a game. My woes are now over, and I'm quite excited about that.



I wasn't complaining and the people I play are not dicks as you called them. I'm saying the rules cause an escalation, not a reduction in size of the game.

Only if you can't agree acceptable boundaries beforehand. Is that so much to ask?

TheFang
09-07-2015, 21:24
The other day I was in my local GW, just perusin' and chatting about Arkham Knight,

Knight Models Batman (http://www.knightmodels.com/index.php/shop/show/viewproduct/batman-miniature-complete-rulebook-english-version-1.2/IdProduct/229). Free rules that work, Nice minis. Cheaper than AoS.

At least the skeletons can be hung from Raiders.


AoS has rules.

That don't make any sense.

SteveW
09-07-2015, 21:25
Only if you can't agree acceptable boundaries beforehand. Is that so much to ask?

I play games with the rules they come with, id never be arrogant enough to alter them more to my liking irrespective of how my opponent felt. If I like a game, I play it. If I don't like it, I don't.

I like Age Of Sigmar.

wulox
09-07-2015, 21:27
I am in a similar boat to OP.

Having only played 40k and LoTR and not fantasy in the 10 or so years of being in the hobby, AoS has actually made me want to play fantasy. Enough to make me purchase the AoS.
This comes down to the simple fact that whilst I very much liked the setting of fantasy (which isnt there anymore) there was no faction that appealed to me at the time, whereas the Stormcast Eternals do.
I like me some heavy armour dudes, but not evil AKA Warriors of Chaos. Therefore bad rules or good rules, I'm starting a Stormcast Eternal force.

Philhelm
09-07-2015, 21:39
Up until recently I only played 40k, Dark Eldar to be specific. The other day I was in my local GW, just perusin' and chatting about Arkham Knight, when one of the guys asked me and another customer if we'd played Age of Sigmar yet. We both said no, and so we both sat down for a demo game. All the worries people are having seem pretty unfounded, and WHFB must of been really, really fun, because I had an absolute BLAST with Age of Sigmar, even though I was crushed by the other guy. I immediately proceeded to buy some Vampire Counts Skeleton Warriors, because hey, I play Dark Eldar!

So what I'm saying is that Age of Sigmar, and it's more accessible size and rules, seems to hook new Fantasy players, and it's really fun.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Age of Sigmar boxed set is reasonably balanced and fun. The problems arise once players start fielding the other factions in unlimited numbers; that is when balance is completely defenestrated. Summoning units, such as vampires and necromancers, are especially broken, even if both players want to have a balanced battle. This is especially true in smaller battles when a raised unit of, say, five Black Knights (or a single Terrorgheist!) could single-handedly change the course of the battle. The other problems arise when you field models with 20mm square bases; it turns into a game of Tetris just to get a unit to "pile in." Round bases are definitely preferable for Age of Sigmar's style of movement and gameplay. Finally, the game continues to be problematic once the implications of "bases don't matter" are given some serious thought, not to mention some of the other dubious rules.

SlowingCoyote
09-07-2015, 21:41
There are obviously some varying opinions on this, but I think that everyone should at least give Age of Sigmar a go, the rules are free after all.

TheFang
09-07-2015, 21:44
There are obviously some varying opinions on this, but I think that everyone should at least give Age of Sigmar a go, the rules are free after all.

We have. It's terrible.

Shandor
09-07-2015, 22:08
You just found out the whole point of AoS. Test Games with a GW-Guy. :)

You dont know anything about AoS.. you get a Test Game where the GW-Guy tells you what you need to do and how you play and its fun. It lasts for 1-4 Games and slowly you realize the more you learn about the Game the more it sucks.. because what the GW-Guy actually did was everything the Game has to offer. There is no "diving deeper" into the game. There is no "getting better". You already did play the whole game.

You deplay a random number of models with the other guy. You move everything you have in the other players Model direktion and you roll some dice.. always hitting on the same. After some time you repeat the same thing you win or lose. Thats it :)

AoS was made for a Test Game.. for peoples throw some Quick money on GW and never seen again.

Turgol
09-07-2015, 22:17
You just found out the whole point of AoS. Test Games with a GW-Guy. :)

You dont know anything about AoS.. you get a Test Game where the GW-Guy tells you what you need to do and how you play and its fun. It lasts for 1-4 Games and slowly you realize the more you learn about the Game the more it sucks.. because what the GW-Guy actually did was everything the Game has to offer. There is no "diving deeper" into the game. There is no "getting better". You already did play the whole game.

You deplay a random number of models with the other guy. You move everything you have in the other players Model direktion and you roll some dice.. always hitting on the same. After some time you repeat the same thing you win or lose. Thats it :)

AoS was made for a Test Game.. for peoples throw some Quick money on GW and never seen again.

You would not win much money if you just sell starter set and stuff, do you?
Kids and their logic.

Shandor
09-07-2015, 22:39
You would not win much money if you just sell starter set and stuff, do you?
Kids and their logic.

Tell that GW not me.. They seem to think it will work. If you really want to tell me that someone had more then 5 games AoS and still has fun with it? Dont fool yourself. :)

Bar0n_1
09-07-2015, 22:46
You just found out the whole point of AoS. Test Games with a GW-Guy. :)

You dont know anything about AoS.. you get a Test Game where the GW-Guy tells you what you need to do and how you play and its fun. It lasts for 1-4 Games and slowly you realize the more you learn about the Game the more it sucks.. because what the GW-Guy actually did was everything the Game has to offer. There is no "diving deeper" into the game. There is no "getting better". You already did play the whole game.

You deplay a random number of models with the other guy. You move everything you have in the other players Model direktion and you roll some dice.. always hitting on the same. After some time you repeat the same thing you win or lose. Thats it :)

AoS was made for a Test Game.. for peoples throw some Quick money on GW and never seen again.

Wow! That was incredibly patronising. You sound like you love putting people in their place.

I'm a 20+ years vet of hundreds of warhammer battles, so I know the previous editions (6th not included as those were my uni years) like the back of my hand. I have played several AOS games already and what you described is not what I experienced at all. Don't get me wrong I loved 8th, it was fantastic but AOS has achieved several things that the older editions constantly failed on. Entry point, speed of play, non stagnant timeline, easy to pick up rules etc.

I'm not saying its better.... I miss magic variety, customising lists/characters, the wonderful setting etc. However AOS is a different game and it is a refreshing change. If it grabs new players then great. I understand the viewpoint of the ultra competitive 'I must come up with an army list that no-one can beat' tournament player. Their scene is crushed now with no points and re-worked units. What a shame we might actually start to see more fluffy lists and models that people actually want to field as oppose to the ones that are 'must have' for their race. Who knows maybe the Troglodon is viable now? (Maybe not I haven't got round to my Lizardmen yet).

Is it a money grab? Of course it bloody is! This whole hobby has been 30 years plus of money grab! But if people enjoy it then who cares. If you don't then do something else. Life is too short for this joy sucking assassination of people trying to enjoy a game of Warhammer...... oh sorry it's not Warhammer is it? And before anyone throws the GW sympathiser line at me then think again. The steady and sad decline of White Dwarf and some of the awful 7th ed army books have pissed me right off in the past but I'm not going to belittle the people who enjoy them.

AOS may well die a death, it may go onto generate a much larger fanbase than before. I wouldn't dare predict but fair play to the people who are enjoying it and good on those sticking with 8th. Although maybe if you don't like AOS then a thread entitled 'Age of Sigmar worked on me' might not be for you.

roperpg
09-07-2015, 22:53
You tried it and liked it?
Well, obviously you're a GW shill, or you're weak minded because you fell for the ol' "intro game" patter, or you'll realise it's rubbish, or you have some kind of as-yet unidentified mental condition that allows you to enjoy things other people don't, or you'll burn everything and turn to mantic because y'know, 'real serious' gamers, blah, blah, blah.

If you and your friends like it, good for you!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Shandor
09-07-2015, 23:01
Wow! That was incredibly patronising. You sound like you love putting people in their place.

I'm a 20+ years vet of hundreds of warhammer battles, so I know the previous editions (6th not included as those were my uni years) like the back of my hand. I have played several AOS games already and what you described is not what I experienced at all. Don't get me wrong I loved 8th, it was fantastic but AOS has achieved several things that the older editions constantly failed on. Entry point, speed of play, non stagnant timeline, easy to pick up rules etc.

I'm not saying its better.... I miss magic variety, customising lists/characters, the wonderful setting etc. However AOS is a different game and it is a refreshing change. If it grabs new players then great. I understand the viewpoint of the ultra competitive 'I must come up with an army list that no-one can beat' tournament player. Their scene is crushed now with no points and re-worked units. What a shame we might actually start to see more fluffy lists and models that people actually want to field as oppose to the ones that are 'must have' for their race. Who knows maybe the Troglodon is viable now? (Maybe not I haven't got round to my Lizardmen yet).

Is it a money grab? Of course it bloody is! This whole hobby has been 30 years plus of money grab! But if people enjoy it then who cares. If you don't then do something else. Life is too short for this joy sucking assassination of people trying to enjoy a game of Warhammer...... oh sorry it's not Warhammer is it? And before anyone throws the GW sympathiser line at me then think again. The steady and sad decline of White Dwarf and some of the awful 7th ed army books have pissed me right off in the past but I'm not going to belittle the people who enjoy them.

AOS may well die a death, it may go onto generate a much larger fanbase than before. I wouldn't dare predict but fair play to the people who are enjoying it and good on those sticking with 8th. Although maybe if you don't like AOS then a thread entitled 'Age of Sigmar worked on me' might not be for you.

Im just interested in other Peoples opinions. Maybe the OP will post again in some weeks and tell us if he is still playing :)
And.. should i start Posting with .. im 37 years old and started with Heroquest.. and those stuff too? Is that something makes my opinion better then others? Or give it more weight? :)

Ramius4
09-07-2015, 23:01
It was.

It still is my friend. It still is ;)

Bar0n_1
09-07-2015, 23:02
Im just interested in other Peoples opinions. Maybe the OP will post again in some weeks and tell us if he is still playing :)
And.. should i start Posting with .. im 37 years old and started with Heroquest.. and those stuff too? Is that something makes my opinion better then others? Or give it more weight? :)

Nice try! But I'm not biting. I made my point.

Philhelm
09-07-2015, 23:13
What a shame we might actually start to see more fluffy lists and models that people actually want to field as oppose to the ones that are 'must have' for their race. Who knows maybe the Troglodon is viable now? (Maybe not I haven't got round to my Lizardmen yet).

I would argue quite the opposite. While a points system isn't perfect, fluffy armies could be fielded with a reasonable chance of success, since there were limits to what a player could field. In fact, I typically field a Stirland/Witch Hunter infantry army consisting of Witch Hunters (weaker Hero option), Warrior Priests (great), Spearmen (less cost effective than Halberdiers), Crossbowmen (cost ineffective), Cannon (great), Flagellants (cost ineffective), and Militia (cost ineffective). I rarely field cavalry and never field Steam Tanks, Demigryph Knights, and Helblaster Volleyguns, but I can expect a reasonable chance of victory all the same.

However, with no real limits, a player would be better off purchasing boxes of, say, Stormvermin as opposed to Skaven Clanrats, because why not? Instead of having a vast horde of Night Goblins, why not a vast horde of Chaos Warriors? Why not a vast horde of characters? With no limitations imposed, players with weaker models are penalized, since they will require even more models potentially, and will get slapped in the face with the stupid Sudden Death rule.

ArgelTal
09-07-2015, 23:15
I finally snapped and stopped buying from GW at all when 7th Ed 40k came out. I got rid of most of my GW stuff and have spent the last six months building up sizeable collections of X Wing, Armada and Imperial Assault and I had a blast. Games that I actually played! Fun games that were light on rules and heavy on tactics and entertainment. Decent community with a great, friendly vibe. Easy to access and participate in tourney scene. Well supported by the manufacturer. All brilliant. I was done with GW. I was out.

I read the AoS rules and wasn't all that impressed. They seemed very basic and random, and I was certain I wouldn't like it. I thought the models were pretty, sure and I was intrigued vaguely by the background but all in all I thought it wasn't for me.

Then I had a demo game with a mate last night, run by our local GW manager at my games club. We both went in expecting it to be pump. We'd throw some dice, be polite to Dave and wander home. Then we played it. My Khorne dudes kicked the stuffing out of his Stormcast Eternals. My marauders died in droves, my Warlord was a close combat powerhouse. We had...fun.

Now I'm signed up to go to a midnight launch event tomorrow at my FLGS. I am going to play a few more games, get my head round it properly, and if it still proves to be fun I will buy. Because it was fun. More fun than I ever had with a game of WFB or 40k (yes, even store demo games).

I am clearly a bad gamer. But I don't care because I'm a happy one :)

dalezzz
09-07-2015, 23:35
And a skeleton is a skeleton, so I imagine you're pretty safe with your choice too.

unless it's a "deathrattler" ? :D

swordofglass
09-07-2015, 23:35
Entry point


The entry point is the same as 8th edition. In fact, isn't the starter set more expensive? Ok, so you can use any size army you want, because there are no points. Well, you could have done that in 8th edition. Why did you need a 2500 point army? Only because other people wanted to play games that size. If you only had a box and a character, you could play a 200 point game with a friend. Nothing changes then.


speed of play

Well only if you use smaller armies. In decent sized games, it would actually be slower, since you have to do all this 'moving individual models' nonsense, and 'piling in'. Plus, every model basically having its own unique special rules instead of sharing from a pool of universal special rules makes things way more convoluted and tedious.


non stagnant timeline

Completely irrelevant for a wargame. I would argue it's even detrimental. People don't generally play wargames for a narrative story, they play because they like the setting. Story arcs tend to have a way of changing the setting, which can lead to models you purchased in the past becoming obsolete or less useful.


easy to pick up rules etc.

Warhammer's rules were not complicated. They could have worded some things better and streamlined them a bit, and there were a few rules that were a bit unwieldy, but by and large the rules made sense. If Warhammer's rules were too complicated for someone, they should definitely not be playing table-top wargames - I guess that makes AoS perfect for them then.


it is a depressing change.

Fixed that for you :shifty:


I understand the viewpoint of the ultra competitive 'I must come up with an army list that no-one can beat' tournament player. Their scene is crushed now with no points and re-worked units.

Couldn't disagree more. The changes do not just hurt the ultra-competitive scene, they hurt everyone interested in playing a wargame as a test of skill - which is most people.


Who knows maybe the Troglodon is viable now? (Maybe not I haven't got round to my Lizardmen yet).

Of course the Trogolodon is 'viable' now - it costs no points. You just buy whatever models you like, and put them on the table. Didn't you get the memo?!


Is it a money grab? Of course it bloody is! This whole hobby has been 30 years plus of money grab!

Oh that's just fine then. Businesses need to make money, so whatever they do, if it makes them money then they can't be criticised?


But if people enjoy it then who cares.

Me!


Life is too short for this joy sucking assassination of people trying to enjoy a game of Warhammer......

"Age of Sigmar is not a game of Warhammer, it is an abomination worse than anything Clan Moulder could even imagine. And that's not just my opinion, it is fact."

The quote above is just my opinion.

The bolded text is not just my opinion, it is fact.

The orange text above is just my opinion :shifty:


And before anyone throws the GW sympathiser line at me then think again. The steady and sad decline of White Dwarf and some of the awful 7th ed army books have pissed me right off in the past but I'm not going to belittle the people who enjoy them.

Fair enough, they did ruin White Dwarf beyond repair, and put out some questionable army books in the past. This goes beyond the pale though. I am not belittling anyone, just disagreeing.


if you don't like AOS then a thread entitled 'Age of Sigmar worked on me' might not be for you.

I don't think threads should only be for agreement and back-patting. Having said that it is not my intention to offend, and of course everyone is entitled to 'play' and enjoy AoS if they so desire.

Reinholt
09-07-2015, 23:37
My spider sense is tingling...

Kegslayer
09-07-2015, 23:38
Knight Models Batman (http://www.knightmodels.com/index.php/shop/show/viewproduct/batman-miniature-complete-rulebook-english-version-1.2/IdProduct/229). Free rules that work, Nice minis. Cheaper than AoS.

At least the skeletons can be hung from Raiders.

Have they updated the free rules yet, if not they are rather useless, Nice models yes, but stupid to put together, cheaper marginally as you know youll want more than a handful.



That don't make any sense.

Yet funnily enough do for some people


We have. It's terrible.

Yet people are enjoying it.


You tried it and liked it?
Well, obviously you're a GW shill, or you're weak minded because you fell for the ol' "intro game" patter, or you'll realise it's rubbish, or you have some kind of as-yet unidentified mental condition that allows you to enjoy things other people don't, or you'll burn everything and turn to mantic because y'know, 'real serious' gamers, blah, blah, blah.

If you and your friends like it, good for you!

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Not sure if trolling......


I finally snapped and stopped buying from GW at all when 7th Ed 40k came out. I got rid of most of my GW stuff and have spent the last six months building up sizeable collections of X Wing, Armada and Imperial Assault and I had a blast. Games that I actually played! Fun games that were light on rules and heavy on tactics and entertainment. Decent community with a great, friendly vibe. Easy to access and participate in tourney scene. Well supported by the manufacturer. All brilliant. I was done with GW. I was out.

I read the AoS rules and wasn't all that impressed. They seemed very basic and random, and I was certain I wouldn't like it. I thought the models were pretty, sure and I was intrigued vaguely by the background but all in all I thought it wasn't for me.

Then I had a demo game with a mate last night, run by our local GW manager at my games club. We both went in expecting it to be pump. We'd throw some dice, be polite to Dave and wander home. Then we played it. My Khorne dudes kicked the stuffing out of his Stormcast Eternals. My marauders died in droves, my Warlord was a close combat powerhouse. We had...fun.

Now I'm signed up to go to a midnight launch event tomorrow at my FLGS. I am going to play a few more games, get my head round it properly, and if it still proves to be fun I will buy. Because it was fun. More fun than I ever had with a game of WFB or 40k (yes, even store demo games).

I am clearly a bad gamer. But I don't care because I'm a happy one :)

This. At the end of the day who cares what game folk are playing as long as they enjoy it. You dont like AoS so what. Move on and get over it

Turgol
10-07-2015, 00:20
Yet funnily enough do for some people



Yet people are enjoying it.



Not sure if trolling......



This. At the end of the day who cares what game folk are playing as long as they enjoy it. You dont like AoS so what. Move on and get over it
Oh but they wont! They will keep moaning, while at the same time interested in everything related to GW and buying some of their stuff.
I already left behind all hope of reasoning and showing the selfish ways of trying to spoil people's fun.

SteveW
10-07-2015, 00:28
. im 37 years old and started with Heroquest.. :)

Well you would be me then...lol

Shandor
10-07-2015, 00:36
Well you would be me then...lol

Mom never tolt me i have a twin brother named SteveW! :)

Lord Dan
10-07-2015, 00:37
My spider sense is tingling...

Some say that on dark, stormy nights, if you clap your hands twice, type in orange font, and make a sweeping economics or business-related claim, Reinholt will manifest himself to you...

SteveW
10-07-2015, 00:37
Mom never tolt me i have a twin brother named SteveW! :)

Were you always the elf too?

Shandor
10-07-2015, 00:46
Were you always the elf too?

I have some Undead.. but my Main armys are Darkelf, Woodelf and i played an Elf list in End times that involved Highelves. For an full mounted Elf list i needed Silverhelmets.

Bloodknight
10-07-2015, 00:48
He meant "in HeroQuest" :).

I usually played the wizard and snatched the fire spells first so the elf couldn't have them. :D With a staff, cloak and greaves the wizard wasn't so bad (also, he could use practically all of the magic items, I think even Borin's Armour worked). The Night Spells set from the Wizards of Morcar supplement wasn't bad either, the rest was...not so great.

As to the OP: good for you that you enjoyed it. I'm still reserving judgement, I don't trust test games with the starter set. I'll wait till I find someone to play with with a different army (my models sadly did not receive warscrolls).

Shandor
10-07-2015, 00:52
He meant "in HeroQuest" :).

I usually played the wizard and snatched the fire spells first so the elf couldn't have them. :D With a staff, cloak and greaves the wizard wasn't so bad. The Night Spells set from the Wizards of Morcar supplement wasn't bad either, the rest was...not so great.

The Elf was "Der Alb" in german.. no idea why. And yes i always played him. But i prefered Earth magic to run throu Walls.

Bloodknight
10-07-2015, 00:58
Alb is a pre-18th century German word for Elf. It remains in Albtraum (Nightmare). Both alb and elf are most likely rooted in a protogermanic word meaning "white".

SimaoSegunda
10-07-2015, 01:17
To the OP: I'm glad you had a blast with it. I've only been able to get 1 game in so far (hadn't expected the rules to be freely available before the box came out, so I'd arranged 40k games for my hobby night), but I had an absolute blast with it too. Deciding how to use my command abilities was the tricky part for me, do I make a unit immune to battle shock, or do I give a unit an extra attack? Which unit actually needs the buff? Etc etc.

Im I going to my FLGS after work tomorrow to help them set up the demo copy (ie assemble the models for them), and then help them run the demo day they're planning, so hopefully all will go well. I'm also promising to take a couple of armies down with me on wargaming night so that I can run demo games with non-starter forces for people who want to give it a try. ATM the main audience seems to be gamers of other systems who have had an eye on fantasy for a while, but always been daunted by the idea of having to build up a big force before they could really play.

I really want AoS to do well, and I make no apologies for the fact that I will be trying to promote it in my FLGS, even if I do that simply by always being there with a couple of armies so that anyone who wants a game can play.

dwarfhold13
10-07-2015, 02:09
Some say that on dark, stormy nights, if you clap your hands twice, type in orange font, and make a sweeping economics or business-related claim, Reinholt will manifest himself to you...

This guy... :D

Coldhatred
10-07-2015, 03:15
Different factions in this debate are always going to disagree. I am pro-AoS, but not blindly, as I have concerns when it comes to balance and measuring from the model as well. The way I see it the sheer fact that the rules are digital allow for changes to occur which gives some measure of *Insert Sigmar Voice* "Hope." for all the anti-AoS ladies and gentlemen.

roperpg
10-07-2015, 07:59
Not sure if trolling......

What, me? No, just fed up with the 'I don't enjoy this, so it cannot be possible for anybody else to enjoy it' type conversations.
If you don't like something, move on to stuff you do. Pretty simple, really.



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Mateobard
10-07-2015, 13:58
What, me? No, just fed up with the 'I don't enjoy this, so it cannot be possible for anybody else to enjoy it' type conversations.
If you don't like something, move on to stuff you do. Pretty simple, really.



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Some people really like bad American beer. Their fondness for bad American beer does not make that beer good. It just means they have poor taste in beer, often related to misplaced brand loyalty.

roperpg
10-07-2015, 14:00
Is it draughty up there on your pedestal?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Reinholt
10-07-2015, 14:11
Some say that on dark, stormy nights, if you clap your hands twice, type in orange font, and make a sweeping economics or business-related claim, Reinholt will manifest himself to you...

:shifty:

Creepily accurate.

Choombatta
10-07-2015, 14:19
Some people really like bad American beer. Their fondness for bad American beer does not make that beer good. It just means they have poor taste in beer, often related to misplaced brand loyalty.

That could not be a more subjective statement. Poor taste in beer in not something that can be decided by 1 person or a group of people with any meaning at all.
Age of Sigmar is no different.
If someone enjoys playing it, great for them.
If you do not enjoy playing it, sorry.

These threads prove the adage: "Misery loves company".

The_Real_Chris
10-07-2015, 14:28
The rest of the world and many Americans agree with the whole beer thing.

Choombatta
10-07-2015, 14:33
Because we all know, everyone's taste buds ( or likes in a wargame ) are uniform.
Why is it so hard for some people to let others find enjoyment in something they themselves might not like?
It is like the PMRC all over again.

In Dark Trees
10-07-2015, 14:49
That could not be a more subjective statement. Poor taste in beer in not something that can be decided by 1 person or a group of people with any meaning at all.
Age of Sigmar is no different.
If someone enjoys playing it, great for them.
If you do not enjoy playing it, sorry.

These threads prove the adage: "Misery loves company".

No, I think it is objectively true. American "light beer"--which predominates on our domestic market--is terrible. In much the same way that Age of Sigmar is the terrible replacement for what was a pretty solid game.

Reinholt
10-07-2015, 15:07
...
Age of Sigmar is no different.
If someone enjoys playing it, great for them.
If you do not enjoy playing it, sorry.
...

All joking aside, I think the core issue is the proportions.

If we think of a spectrum, we would have a range from: Everyone Loves Sigmar <----> Age of Sigmar is Okay <----> IT BURNS THE GOGGLES THEY DO NOTHING

And the question, ultimately, is where on the spectrum the average weight of customers land; any individual reaction is but a grain of sand in the wind, what matters is where the overwhelming majority of them ultimately accumulate. I think only madmen, heretics, and people on the internet would have believed that either 100% love or 100% hatred were reasonable outcomes. What I suggest will ultimately determine the success of the game will be the medium to long-term average opinion of the entire crowd.

Right now, I am guardedly pessimistic based on the 100+ people I have personally talked with about this, but who knows if that is really representative? The plural of anecdote is not data. 1 year forward we will know much, much more.

Choombatta
10-07-2015, 15:16
No, I think it is objectively true. American "light beer"--which predominates on our domestic market--is terrible. In much the same way that Age of Sigmar is the terrible replacement for what was a pretty solid game.

That is your opinion, not a fact.
If American light beer is terrible, to everyone, no one would drink it.
The fact that some people drink it, and some even prefer it, shows that to some people, it is not terrible, and in fact, good.
Same with AoS. Some people may have hated the old WFB, but enjoy AoS. This does not mean those people are "wrong", it means they have different tastes.
The need to belittle other people's opinion based on their likes is childish at best.
**Disclaimer**
I am not in any way stating I "like" or "dislike" AoS.

Lord Dan
10-07-2015, 16:39
IT BURNS THE GOGGLES THEY DO NOTHING

I almost just choked and died on my hot dog, so thanks for brightening my morning.

Philhelm
10-07-2015, 16:47
I almost just choked and died on my hot dog, so thanks for brightening my morning.

You're supposed to chew a hotdog, not swallow it whole. :shifty:

EmperorNorton
10-07-2015, 16:50
You're supposed to chew a hotdog, not swallow it whole. :shifty:

He's in training.

For becoming a competitive eater, not what you think. :eek: (Pictured: Lord Dan, opening wide.)

AkatsukiLeader13
10-07-2015, 16:54
Good for you Coyote. Glad you enjoyed it. The End Times brought my interest back beyond the novels and AoS has started to really pull me back into the hobby after like four, five years.

While online I've seen many negative comments, some to truly sad levels of RAGE!!! like the guy who did a long profanity-laden rant and burned his army over AoS, people I've talked to in person generally seem positive about it. I've heard complaints about rules, particularly towards the older armies but the starter set seems to play quite well.

Is it perfect? Nope but then it's the beginning of a new world with a new system and as people have proven time and time again, they don't like change.

Do I pine for the old world? Yes, even as much I enjoyed the End Times I will miss it. But I am interested in the new setting and all it has to offer.

I loved WHFB and I've become interested in AoS.

*Braces for the inevitable backlash*

Kahadras
10-07-2015, 17:02
I loved WHFB and I've become interested in AoS.

*Braces for the inevitable backlash*

Nope it's cool. If you want to play AoS then play AoS. I'm sure there are people who will join you.

I'm off to try out Kings of War. I have a couple of big Warhammer armies and some of my friends have been saying good things about the system.

Mateobard
10-07-2015, 17:11
That is your opinion, not a fact.
If American light beer is terrible, to everyone, no one would drink it.

Again, brand loyalty. You can enjoy a bad beer. That doesn't make the beer good. It's not made good because you happen to enjoy it. You just have limited taste, or your brand loyalty is preventing your from recognize that you're drinking something that's the rough equivalent to sex in a canoe.




The fact that some people drink it, and some even prefer it, shows that to some people, it is not terrible, and in fact, good.

The Phantom Menace was a terrible Star Wars movie, even if millions flocked to see it.

Something can be objectively rancid even if people enjoy it. See, for example, the Chicago Cubs.

Sephillion
10-07-2015, 17:14
That don't make any sense.

Exactly this. http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?410594-WTF-moments-in-the-AoS-rules

I'm all for simplification, but simplistic rules badly explained, with so much wtfs and a lackof balance... yikes.

Choombatta
10-07-2015, 17:26
Again, brand loyalty. You can enjoy a bad beer. That doesn't make the beer good. It's not made good because you happen to enjoy it. You just have limited taste, or your brand loyalty is preventing your from recognize that you're drinking something that's the rough equivalent to sex in a canoe.

The Phantom Menace was a terrible Star Wars movie, even if millions flocked to see it.

Something can be objectively rancid even if people enjoy it. See, for example, the Chicago Cubs.

Ok, if you seriously do not realize you are using your subjective opinion to paint everyone with your own chosen brush, then there is not point in continuing.

InstantKarma
10-07-2015, 17:38
That could not be a more subjective statement. Poor taste in beer in not something that can be decided by 1 person or a group of people with any meaning at all.
Age of Sigmar is no different.
If someone enjoys playing it, great for them.
If you do not enjoy playing it, sorry.

These threads prove the adage: "Misery loves company".

Given that the words 'objective' and 'subjective' are not good enough descriptors as to the quality or rightness of a thing to begin with, I'm not sure you dispproved his point. This is especially true given that all I need to say is that your statement is just as 'subjective' as his and we can get ourselves trapped in a nice logical loop without end. Your concern is different from his. His is on what standards are used to make a judgment, and you are concerned with WHO is making the judgement. Both are valid concerns, but they are only related to each other, not identical to each other.

I however, was more concerned if he was trying to imply that all American beer was bad :p

Choombatta
10-07-2015, 18:12
Given that the words 'objective' and 'subjective' are not good enough descriptors as to the quality or rightness of a thing to begin with, I'm not sure you dispproved his point. This is especially true given that all I need to say is that your statement is just as 'subjective' as his and we can get ourselves trapped in a nice logical loop without end. Your concern is different from his. His is on what standards are used to make a judgment, and you are concerned with WHO is making the judgement. Both are valid concerns, but they are only related to each other, not identical to each other.

I however, was more concerned if he was trying to imply that all American beer was bad :p

Well, objective is without bias, and subjective is with bias.
You nailed it right on the head though, it is judgment.
A person can use any standards they want to judge something, but cannot then impose those same standards on everyone else.
"Bad" and "Good" are both very subjective terms, depending on the person's standards of judgement.
If I think the Atlanta Braves are the best MLB team, that does not mean someone who likes the Cubs are wrong. It just means they have different standards.

FatherTurin
10-07-2015, 18:24
I think I see what GW was trying to do, and if it works for people, that's awesome. Granted, take my opinion with a few grains of salt. I started playing WFB back in 96-97 (as a 14-15 year old, so don't ever tell me this game didn't used to appeal to members of a younger demographic). Over the years I played Chaos, then Beastmen when the armies split in 3, with some skaven and high elves later on. Moved into 40k in '98 and played both for years until the cost became a bit prohibitive and games took too long. Sold off my armies, got into warmachine and then hordes for setting, streamlined rules, faster play and low cost of entry. Once those appealing aspects went away (except the setting, but they have top notch RPGs for that), I dropped warmahordes. Now I'm actually getting back into 40k (just dabbling really). And I was intrigued by Age of Sigmar. Maybe it would get me back into Warhammer Fantasy?

Nope. Again, I get what they were trying for. Get new players, attempt faster gameplay and have a flexible cost of entry. Essentially they tried for "more taste, less filling." My personal view is that they got "less taste, less filling." Again, if other people love it, great. It's just not for me. For me, if I want a faster game with lower cost that can be easily fun and casual or deep and competitive (and I do), I have X-Wing.

TL/DR: I haven't played warhammer fantasy for close to a decade. AoS is not getting me back. For fast games that can be fun or competitive, I have X-Wing.

Mateobard
10-07-2015, 18:44
Ok, if you seriously do not realize you are using your subjective opinion to paint everyone with your own chosen brush, then there is not point in continuing.

You're not listening.

Subjective opinion is irrelevant. This game is either good or bad on it's own merits, or it is not. Your enjoyment of it is irrelevant. Your enjoyment of the game *might* play a small role in trying to prove that it's good on it's merits (good games are fun to play, I at least had fun playing this game, so that contributes in some way to the overall argument that it's a quality game), but that's about the limit of it's value.

If you have decided it's a good game then you're no longer talking about your opinion, you're talking about the quality of the game, in which case you are talking about something objective, not subjective. It can be bad, and you can like it. But it but it's not good because you like it. That's not even remotely logical. "Lone Star beer is a good beer" is a statement about the quality of a beer. That's something you can actually try to defend.

"Lone Star Beer is good because I enjoy it" is sloppy thinking. It's like saying "I like nipples on the Bat suit, therefore it is good". Something can even be very popular and still of low quality. I could probably point to many trends of fashion that were based on shoddy quality clothing, or things like the pet rock, which were brilliant in marketing and design, but still just a rock in a box.

Choombatta
10-07-2015, 19:15
You're not listening.

Subjective opinion is irrelevant. This game is either good or bad on it's own merits, or it is not. Your enjoyment of it is irrelevant. Your enjoyment of the game *might* play a small role in trying to prove that it's good on it's merits (good games are fun to play, I at least had fun playing this game, so that contributes in some way to the overall argument that it's a quality game), but that's about the limit of it's value.

If you have decided it's a good game then you're no longer talking about your opinion, you're talking about the quality of the game, in which case you are talking about something objective, not subjective. It can be bad, and you can like it. But it but it's not good because you like it. That's not even remotely logical. "Lone Star beer is a good beer" is a statement about the quality of a beer. That's something you can actually try to defend.

"Lone Star Beer is good because I enjoy it" is sloppy thinking. It's like saying "I like nipples on the Bat suit, therefore it is good". Something can even be very popular and still of low quality. I could probably point to many trends of fashion that were based on shoddy quality clothing, or things like the pet rock, which were brilliant in marketing and design, but still just a rock in a box.

Ok, you seriously do not realize, and here I thought you were just trolling.
So, to stick by my word, I will discontinue replying about this.

silveralen
10-07-2015, 19:42
You're not listening.

Subjective opinion is irrelevant. This game is either good or bad on it's own merits, or it is not. Your enjoyment of it is irrelevant. Your enjoyment of the game *might* play a small role in trying to prove that it's good on it's merits (good games are fun to play, I at least had fun playing this game, so that contributes in some way to the overall argument that it's a quality game), but that's about the limit of it's value.

Okay, let me try to explain this: Good simply means an above average version of something, something which performs it's task in a better than average way. A game is something done for recreational enjoyment, usually competitive in nature.

So the only measure of whether or not a game is good is enjoyment. If you start talking about quality well thought out rules that provide balance, yes those typically increase enjoyment. But the importance of that differs. Complexity of rules can increase or decrease enjoyment according to the person. Degree of randomness differs as well, some people enjoy a little, a lot, or prefer to make it as minimal as possible.

Their is no objective qualification for a good game, because the qualification good in regards to a game simply means enjoyable, which is subjective, because that is all a game is meant to provide at base. Even things which will universally increase enjoyment of a game may do it more or less depending on the person, again impacting the perceived quality. You cannot label it as objectively good.

swordofglass
10-07-2015, 19:50
Well as much as I hate Age of S***mar, Choombatta is correct in that it can't be objectively good or bad. There's no way you can say beer X is objectively better than beer Y, for example - that's a completely nonsensical thing to say! Having said that, I wouldn't touch Age of S***mar with a barge pole, because it fulfills none of the criteria I have a good war-game.
I could try to say Age of S***mar is 'objectively bad' because the rules are sloppy and nonsensical, incredibly boring, and it is purely based around pay-to-win, but that can be countered by someone either disagreeing with my assessment, or simply stating that those factors are not relevant to them when assessing how good the game is...
Isn't that, like... obvious?

Jack Shrapnel
10-07-2015, 19:59
Have been enjoying this game still... several games in. Long time WHFB player who got disillusioned with 8th and stopped playing it altogether and played exclusively 40k, malifaux and x-wing as my miniatures games. Really liking AOS thus far. So to the original post, yeah it got me playing too and I like it.

I think it's important that those who actually like the game speak up as well, as sometimes the internet rage can be a little ridiculous, and people who are thinking of trying the game shouldn't be given the impression that everyone hates it or the rules are terrible.

underscore
10-07-2015, 20:04
You can, however, make objective statements about attributes of things - I.e. weak lager doesn't have a strong flavour. Age of Sigmar does not allow for organised play as of yet.

From there I don't think it's a huge stretch to assign value based on these attributes. E.g. stronger, fuller tastes is seen as a sign of quality. Not having a structure to list building makes a game to hard to arrange for a lot of people. Relativism is all well and good, but its not the be all and end all.

Liber
10-07-2015, 20:15
I am excited to try aos.


People pointing to the core rules being simplistic as being bad are simply misinterpreting the meta. Special rules are the name of this game. Special rules and combinations of them are meant to provide the strategy and depth. See Hearthstone as a great example of how this can work.


That said I haven't had any test games yet, but the model can work in theory and has for other games.

Azazel
10-07-2015, 20:52
I am excited to see what AoS is going to bring!


I think the people who are looking forward to it FAR outnumber those who are going to stop playing.

Those of us who like AoS say our piece and move on. Those who dislike AoS will ramble on and on and on about it.

Seems to me those who want a balanced game (which Warhammer has never been for 30 years) or have to rebase their entire collections are the bitterest.

silveralen
10-07-2015, 21:40
You can, however, make objective statements about attributes of things - I.e. weak lager doesn't have a strong flavour. Age of Sigmar does not allow for organised play as of yet.

From there I don't think it's a huge stretch to assign value based on these attributes. E.g. stronger, fuller tastes is seen as a sign of quality. Not having a structure to list building makes a game to hard to arrange for a lot of people. Relativism is all well and good, but its not the be all and end all.

There are actually (rough) tournament rules going around I thought. The one that uses wounds as a stand in for points with some other limitations. No idea how balanced it actually works out to be, but I thought it was official GW.

Hoffa
10-07-2015, 21:45
Could any of you that likes the game explain how you got it to actually work. How did you balance your forces and did you invent any scenario? If you want to make a difference, explain to us haters what we are doing wrong.

Mr_Foulscumm
10-07-2015, 22:06
It was.

...

:cries:

WFB is still fun. :)

Mateobard
10-07-2015, 22:39
Okay, let me try to explain this: Good simply means an above average version of something, something which performs it's task in a better than average way. A game is something done for recreational enjoyment, usually competitive in nature.

I'm with you there.



So the only measure of whether or not a game is good is enjoyment.

You have now lost me. You can enjoy a game in spite of it's rules, it's creative framework (the fluff), etc. For example, I enjoyed playing 4th edition AD&D because my friends and I were getting together to have a good time and to make up stories for our characters as we played. That doesn't mean 4th Edition AD&D was a good game.

Here's another RPG example - Serenity, the role playing game based on Firefly. We had a great time playing the game because we were good at making up interesting characters and doing fun things with them. The system, however, was very clunky, which led to combats that made very little sense, and ultimately took away from the overall experience of playing the game.

Did we have fun? Yes. We had fun in spite of the fact that the game was not well designed or good.



If you start talking about quality well thought out rules that provide balance, yes those typically increase enjoyment. But the importance of that differs. Complexity of rules can increase or decrease enjoyment according to the person. Degree of randomness differs as well, some people enjoy a little, a lot, or prefer to make it as minimal as possible.

I would be happy to support a 4-page rule set as a good game if the rules set was tight and not full of easily exploitable holes, ambiguous mechanics, and just on-their-face inferior mechanics that should have been easy to fix in testing (base to base measurement and the rules for cover spring immediately to mind).

Without a doubt, the degree of complexity and randomness affect people relative to their own tastes, but tight rules are tight and commendable on their own merits, and poorly written and poorly tested rules are bad on their own lack of merit.



Their is no objective qualification for a good game, because the qualification good in regards to a game simply means enjoyable, which is subjective, because that is all a game is meant to provide at base. Even things which will universally increase enjoyment of a game may do it more or less depending on the person, again impacting the perceived quality. You cannot label it as objectively good.

I've already shown that to be incorrect. Bad games can be enjoyable, just like people can enjoy bad beer or badly cooked steak, or bad theatre or a bad movie. The Phantom Menace is objectively a bad Star Wars film. People still enjoyed it. Their enjoyment does not make the movie good.

underscore
10-07-2015, 23:07
There are actually (rough) tournament rules going around I thought. The one that uses wounds as a stand in for points with some other limitations. No idea how balanced it actually works out to be, but I thought it was official GW.
Well, maybe, there wasn't really any indication of it being GW on the paper - it was just a print out of some rumours from last week. The only indication of army building I've seen so far have been in the missions for the starter set - but they were really specific for the armies you got with that. So who knows, maybe there's some more general-use missions out there to come.

MusingWarboss
11-07-2015, 00:30
More accessible size? Are you trolling? I used to run at 2500 points almost every game, I now have to field close to 6-7k(or what would have been) to compete with what the other guy is bringing.

Just bring along a small Norse army, made up from old Norse citadel models. Then stand at the end of the table holding a large metal hammer/mallet and insist on being called "Thor". With some of the new interactive humorous rules s/he'll be apprehensive.

With each move they make just lean over the board, raise the hammer and whisper loudly "just one more inch and I can unleash the Lightning".

I can guarantee they'll bring less stuff next time.

roperpg
11-07-2015, 06:15
More accessible size? Are you trolling? I used to run at 2500 points almost every game, I now have to field close to 6-7k(or what would have been) to compete with what the other guy is bringing.
Just curious, how do you figure that?

Buddy Bear
11-07-2015, 07:40
Just curious, how do you figure that?

I presume because people can now bring their entire collection to a game if they wish, so long as it fits in their deployment zone. I myself have contemplated giving Age of Sigmar a try with my complete Empire army, which in 8th edition would run over 10,000 points.

roperpg
11-07-2015, 07:52
I presume because people can now bring their entire collection to a game if they wish, so long as it fits in their deployment zone. I myself have contemplated giving Age of Sigmar a try with my complete Empire army, which in 8th edition would run over 10,000 points.
He said "need to bring".
It just seems strange that nobody here is the sort of person who *would* deploy a 10k pt army against a 2k one, but that most of the people we play *are*, and that's why we're concerned.

Yesterday I watched a 13 year old grasp the concept of " it's up to you and your friends" in a matter of seconds.
I appreciate the US meta is far more competition based than the UK one, but still.

Losing Command
11-07-2015, 08:08
One guy trying AoS in the store today kinda liked it ... right untill his opponent (lizardmen) summonend another 20 Templeguard. At that point, both players shook hands and packed their stuff.
Overal most people I know here say that the game could be entertaining enough for a few number of games, but it needs a lot of houserules and felt too shallow. After that, everybody suddenly was talking about KoW.

I have to say that while 8th edition and 40k allow WAAC players (not meant offensive, different people enjoy things differently) to abuse certain rules and army compositions to get enormous advantages before a game even begins, AoS without any houserules is a no gloves free for all you will when you want and have the models.

Attilla
11-07-2015, 10:17
One guy trying AoS in the store today kinda liked it ... right untill his opponent (lizardmen) summonend another 20 Templeguard. At that point, both players shook hands and packed their stuff.
Overal most people I know here say that the game could be entertaining enough for a few number of games, but it needs a lot of houserules and felt too shallow. After that, everybody suddenly was talking about KoW.

I have to say that while 8th edition and 40k allow WAAC players (not meant offensive, different people enjoy things differently) to abuse certain rules and army compositions to get enormous advantages before a game even begins, AoS without any houserules is a no gloves free for all you will when you want and have the models.

This exactly! There are too many ways in which AoS can be used wrong. My gaming group is having some great fun with AoS, but we use houserules (points costs, scenarios, no shooting into mele etc). In an official game there should be no need for all that.

On the other hand, when it comes down to costing models, the community can probably do alot better job together than GW ever did :)

Overtninja
11-07-2015, 12:53
I think that's why they are letting the community do it - they know the community can balance the game better than they ever did because the community has been for, like, decades.

BramGaunt
11-07-2015, 13:01
I think that's why they are letting the community do it - they know the community can balance the game better than they ever did because the community has been for, like, decades.

And what kind of confidence does behaviour like this inspire? This company is supposed to be the market leader in regards to tabletop gaming, and they cannot manage to balance a brand new game? Or do they not care enough about it?

Sorry, there just is no angle in which GW gets out of this in a positive light. I have to admit that you might have some fun experiences with this game, and I do like the miniatures. I also think that the game has interesting ideas, and the combat phase even has some resemblence of tactical elements, but all of this get's completly blown out of the way by all the negative aspects, balance leading them.

Overtninja
11-07-2015, 14:17
When you declare yourself a miniatures company first and a rules company never, it's kind of all you need to do. They present a basic framework and then make models to play it with, the players layer additional rules onto the framework provided (as they always have) and go to.

Honestly we're starting to see, even now, a week in, people start to figure out how this game works and have loads of fun with it. I think this paints it in the best light possible - it's a hobby that's fun from a modeling aspect and a play aspect. Balance can happen at a local or event level (the way it always has), and it's still fun. I contend that the actual situation of WHF hasn't really changed - the game isn't balanced so the players are doing it themselves.

edit- It occurs to me that people are only now understanding how to play this game and breaking out of the mindset of playing it like 8th edition, which is why at this point we're starting to see much better games being played. Even people who are playing it rules as written are finding the game isn't nearly as unbalanced as they initially thought - the deployment phase particularly is a major balancing factor in terms of the army being fielded. People are ignoring things like this repeatedly and trying to treat it like 8th edition or jam AoS into an 8th-edition-shaped hole, and it's not going to work well. People are incredibly reticent to change from something they know and understand to something they don't, and in consequence they are not enjoying the new game at all. AoS is very different from 8th edition, and unless people are willing to enter into it with that mindset, they are going to have a bad time.

Shandor
11-07-2015, 14:31
Im still somekind of Shocked how peoples think its a good thing if GW just leaves all the work to the Comunity.

No matter what GW is telling us.. they make Games. You cant release Game after Game and pretend you are not a Gaming Company. Thats just a bad excuse for shortcomings.

And now they go the lazy way give us some half assed, not working rules and some of the Comunity praise them for that? I cant understand this.
If i would buy a Board game like Heroquest or any other Game and would find a small note inside thells me "We cant make proper rules for this game but have fun make some for yourself because you might have more luck then we had" i would bring it back to the store and get my money back.

How could peoples think that: Not delivering something working. is something good? Warhammer wasnt the best balanced Games ever.. in no edition.
But how can be "Not working on it and try to balance it a bit more to deliver a good work" better then the opposite?

If GW wants to be a Modell seller only they should Stop releasing games, stop making army books for 40k, allow Peoples to play any ruleset they want to play in thier Stores, stop releasing Rules for thier "games" as pdf, books or inside the WD.
If someone sells Cars.. he is a Car Seller. Even if he tells everyone he is not :)

Sephillion
11-07-2015, 15:12
I think that's why they are letting the community do it - they know the community can balance the game better than they ever did because the community has been for, like, decades.

I read multiple comments, here and elsewhere, of people who thought they had established balanced forces, only to find out that one side was much more pwoerful than the other. The lack of criteria (points) to use as a starting point is terrible. When I go play at the club, I like to know what I'm going to play beforehand, not have to negotiate with my opponent and spend time deliberating "are these units about equivalent in strength?"

If you know the players in your group well enough that this process is easy, then you could have modified the balance issues before. Now it's just an unneeded hurdle for anyone who wants to go play at the club.

Hell, even in close-knit groups, some people have different views on power balance.

EDIT: Also, perfect balance in wargames having this many variables (units, characters, unit types, weapons, spells) is impossible to achieve. however, other companies at least try, and provide a good framework. GW just decided it wasn't even worth to try. That's actually pathetic.

Reinholt
11-07-2015, 15:39
For all the people talking about the community for AoS: when you have to create a raft of houserules to play it, and there is no standard because everyone does it differently, you don't have a community.

One of the biggest appeal of most GW games has been the ubiquity of them; you can go anywhere and play 40k. This will not be true of AoS, and GW is actively trying to take the gaming community and fracture it into splinters.

This is part of why I think AoS will ultimately not prove popular - when you go online to discuss it, the first 20 posts of your thread on "should I have charged those Chaos Knights" will have to be a long discussion about your house rules and then getting trolled non-stop because, well, we are on the internet.

Inquisitor Kallus
11-07-2015, 16:23
And what kind of confidence does behaviour like this inspire? This company is supposed to be the market leader in regards to tabletop gaming, and they cannot manage to balance a brand new game? Or do they not care enough about it?

Sorry, there just is no angle in which GW gets out of this in a positive light.


Your're in it for blood arent you? :D

I hate to break it to you but some already see it in a positive light.

Since when have GW or anyone else decreed that they are the market leader in tabletop gaming? Ill need a quote and a source if im to take your argument seriously, otherwise it's just make believe They have however claimed to make the best toy/model soldiers in the world

heavyheart
11-07-2015, 17:17
Yesterday I watched a 13 year old grasp the concept of " it's up to you and your friends" in a matter of seconds.

Then he grasped it's not a game because the whole point of having rules is that it's not up to you and your friend deciding not to take x because it's broken and toning down Y because it's unfair.

We play games made by impartial companies so we can have fun without arguments breaking out, you can tell someone not to take four slaan and summon a whole army just because you think it's broken but he can turn around and say "well there's nothing in the rules against it" and you've got no counter.

balance is so very important in games and it is not the gamer's job to try and find it, there should never be a question as to weather someone using 6 blood thirsters against 20 goblins is cheesing the system it should be very clear.

These rules are bad, they fail at the fundamental level level.

Spiney Norman
11-07-2015, 17:30
One guy trying AoS in the store today kinda liked it ... right untill his opponent (lizardmen) summonend another 20 Templeguard. At that point, both players shook hands and packed their stuff.
Overal most people I know here say that the game could be entertaining enough for a few number of games, but it needs a lot of houserules and felt too shallow. After that, everybody suddenly was talking about KoW.


As someone who has played a couple of "summon" armies, I think you're giving a bit of a false impression of how powerful it is, in the lizardmen army only a Slann can summon additional units, a wizard can only cast each spell once per turn so one Slann cannot cast the summon Saurus guard spell multiple times in one turn. The basic version of the spell only summons 5 TG at once, a while that is ok I wouldn't say it was that much better than either of the basic spells; mystic shield or arcane bolt.

Now sure if you roll an 11 (on 2D6 remember) then you get 10 TG and that is pretty brilliant, but 11+ is fairly rare, in most situations it's going to take 3-4 turns of spell casting for a Slann to bring on 20 TG, in all honesty I don't think it is that broken, esp as you have the opportunity to dispel by getting your own wizard in position. On the other hand if your opponent is showing up with 3-4 Slann then I don't think the problem is the game rules ;)

Note that summoned models count towards your casualty count when they get killed, which can really screw you over if the game goes to time

IMHO you're almost always better off attempting to cast the summon Kroxigor spell anyway because even the Lowe level version summons three of them, and they can make a serious dent in most things when they charge.

Hoffa
11-07-2015, 17:50
The only thing I have seen is people taking the warscrolls and basically designing a new game around them. Of course experienced players are able to do this and it is actually a disgrace that just about any gaming vet can significantly improve on AoS with just one day of work/playtest. However the new people GW wants to draw in does not have the experience to basically redesign the game.

Actually the balance problem is worse than not quite agreeing with opponent on balance. If I go the really old school route of designing two forces my self and then let my opponent choose first. I still need either dumb luck or a few test games in order to come up with forces that actually leads to an interesting game.

People are not figuring out how the game works People are realising that the game does not work at all and redesign it into something that at least works for a while.

Inquisitor Kallus
11-07-2015, 18:14
The only thing I have seen is people taking the warscrolls and basically designing a new game around them. Of course experienced players are able to do this and it is actually a disgrace that just about any gaming vet can significantly improve on AoS with just one day of work/playtest. However the new people GW wants to draw in does not have the experience to basically redesign the game.

Actually the balance problem is worse than not quite agreeing with opponent on balance. If I go the really old school route of designing two forces my self and then let my opponent choose first. I still need either dumb luck or a few test games in order to come up with forces that actually leads to an interesting game.

People are not figuring out how the game works People are realising that the game does not work at all and redesign it into something that at least works for a while.

The game doesnt NEED to be redesigned, tweaks and adjustments here and there, the core of it works ok, its mostly the picking of armies/units.

The game does work, just not how you want it to and not like most others you have played. Please note im not saying its a great game

Hoffa
11-07-2015, 18:54
Well if you use a very basic definition of working sure. It does tell us how to start, how to stop and how to determine a winner. It does not however give any instructions as of how to actually make what happens between start and stop interesting.

MusingWarboss
11-07-2015, 19:17
One of the biggest appeal of most GW games has been the ubiquity of them; you can go anywhere and play 40k. This will not be true of AoS, and GW is actively trying to take the gaming community and fracture it into splinters.

But to what end? What possible reason could there be for actively destroying communities it's taken them 30+ years to build up? Just to sell models?? They were doing that anyway and quite successfully for a good portion of their Warhammer/40k games existence by the very process of fostering communities and by doing so, generating interest and ultimately sales.

Ultimately I think AoS won't be successful because it's a stop-gap game designed to usher in their new house style and thus has had minimal effort inserted. I may be wrong but I think in a couple of years, maybe even a year, a new "Warhammer: Something" will pop up and Sigmar will be superseded. By then the new model styles will be in place and you'll be expected to use the new armies for the new setting.

It may be fun to have a few drinks, chuck down some models and stuff but it's not Age of Sigmar that's here to stay, it's the "New Era of Warhammer" setting. I have a feeling the churn and burn strategy is now going to apply to games as much as customers.

As pessimistic as it sounds I think almost yearly game updates are on the cards - probably for free - as a push to keep people interested in buying plastic kits. After 40k 7th and it's two-year release after 6th, I imagine 40k "8th" will either be the last or it'll be a carbon copy of AoS and we'll have "Warhammer 40,000: The Next Heresy" or something. Just look where 6th and 7th has pushed it and then look at AoS. It's the next logical step.

Losing Command
11-07-2015, 19:24
As someone who has played a couple of "summon" armies, I think you're giving a bit of a false impression of how powerful it is...

Well the Lizardmen army included 2 Slann, so that would have been at least 10 Templeguard. And yes, indeed two 11 results showed up ... after 3 full game turns of the Lizardmen player failing to cast any spell. Untill the Templeguard he just kept on rolling 2,3 or 4 with 2 dice. The dice rolls in that game were a lot of extreme cases and little on the middle :D Anyhow, the summoning in that game could have been a whole lot worse, as there was a full case of Lizardmen next to the table that were not summonend in those first 3 turns.

Risegreymon
11-07-2015, 21:24
*Not sure if Original Poster works for GW... or is just simply telling the truth...*

Hmmm. Something fishy with this thread. Part of me thinks this is a trap, the other wants to abandon logic, go out and buy a box and start playing...

Jack Shrapnel
12-07-2015, 01:54
AOS battle with the actual box contents:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8geGRMr7gag&list=WL&index=12





Follow up after report:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMXoet82ddo


I realize all the "experts" are talking about how broken and unbalanced this game is... but here's some actual playtesting and commentary that shows there's a LOT more to this game than some people are giving credit to.

oh, playing the game out of the box, with no houseruling... make of it what you will.

Sephillion
12-07-2015, 02:30
AOS battle with the actual box contents:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8geGRMr7gag&list=WL&index=12 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8geGRMr7gag&list=WL&index=12)





Follow up after report:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMXoet82ddo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMXoet82ddo)


I realize all the "experts" are talking about how broken and unbalanced this game is... but here's some actual playtesting and commentary that shows there's a LOT more to this game than some people are giving credit to.

oh, playing the game out of the box, with no houseruling... make of it what you will.

I don't think anyone thought the battlebox games would be a problem. The armies are pretty well defined. But no, the mechanics of the game are dumb a few fun games won't change that.

Kisanis
12-07-2015, 03:22
To all those talking about the slann summoning etc...

I dealt with that pretty easy in my game; warp grinder with a stormvermin blob; pop up 9" away from slann, charge slann (i had the extra 2" to my charge) attack and mercilissly kill the slann; no more summoning.

There are ways to deal with such cheese; If I play against someone who wants to be super cheesey this way, then I'll gladly play along and watch with glee as I be a jerk back - THEN NEVER PLAY HIM AGAIN.

AoS isn't 8th; I still plan on playing 8th. I also plan on playing KoW. AoS is just another game I can play with my fantasy minis.
I do historical gaming, so for me that means one range on minis that I own, can be for different games:
Bolt Action, Operation Squad, Rules of Engagement, Too Fat Lardies books, etc... are all the same range of commonwealth troops I have.

All AoS has done is make it viable for the fantasy 'blocks of infantry' crowd to finally realize they can play multiple games with the same mini range they own:
Oldhammer games, AoS, KoW, and Mordheim at the minimum - If it is one thing I suggest the WHFB community does, is embrace this so people realize ALL the games you can play with the fantasy ranges out there. ALL of them

explorator
12-07-2015, 03:33
I have played Warhammer for about 15 years, and although I only played 8th ed about 5 times this year, I have played hundreds of games over the years spanning many editions. I had a super fun game playing AoS, and the players I watched playing Skaven vs. Woodelves was also a fun game. It may have flaws, but its is entertaining, and I am looking forward to playing again tomorrow.

Venthrac
12-07-2015, 03:58
Warhammer Fantasy Battles could sometimes be fun, but it required a lot of time and effort to set up and play, plus there were so many flippin' rules, i never played a game that difn't come to a halt as we flipped pages or searched online for errata or FAQs. It was a big, bloated complex beast of a game.

I just played my first AoS game and while i agree it needs proper, standardized army building rules and scenario/objective-driven game, the lighter rules were refreshing and made for a much quicker, easier game. I can see myself playing far more games of AoS if only because they take less time.

Geep
12-07-2015, 06:03
Warhammer Fantasy Battles could sometimes be fun, but it required a lot of time and effort to set up and play, plus there were so many flippin' rules, i never played a game that difn't come to a halt as we flipped pages or searched online for errata or FAQs. It was a big, bloated complex beast of a game.

I just played my first AoS game and while i agree it needs proper, standardized army building rules and scenario/objective-driven game, the lighter rules were refreshing and made for a much quicker, easier game. I can see myself playing far more games of AoS if only because they take less time.
Obviously this is my experience and observation, but I was able to learn the full Warhammer Fantasy rules pretty quickly. In fact, I also collected and learnt the rules for pretty much every army- over multiple editions. It wasn't as complicated as it looked because many things were standardised- all elves had pretty much the same profile, all humans, etc. Upgrades to champions, heroes and lords tended to follow similar patterns between armies, with some variation that was, again, race-specific. Not too hard to pick up. I'm not saying I was an infallible walking rulebook, but I very rarely had games get bogged down due to rules- if there was something unknown, it was usually pretty clear where the rule could be found, or a rule could be pretty accurately assumed.

My observation of Age of Sigmar (I haven't played, and don't really want to) is that rules are extremely confusing and varied. Every unit has its own battlescroll, with few stats, but numbers that can vary quite a bit between units of the same race. Often, units are more similar between armies than within armies (most core troop weapons are 4+/4+, for example). Each unit has weapon options- but it's not simple- a shield isn't a shield, and a sword isn't a sword. The most basic of items vary, apparently randomly, between units in the same army. Even when the effect is identical, they often have different names, which just adds to the confusion. There's very little sense to it. Added on top of that, every unit has special rules- quite often two or three special rules. Again, there's often little or no consistency with these. Previously, the rules for a musician or standard, or the effect of stubborn or frenzy, where consistent not only within the one army, but across the entire game- now it's different for every unit. I don't see how Age of Sigmar can be played without constant reference to the Warscrolls- and forgetting special rules will likely be very common.

Buddy Bear
12-07-2015, 06:51
I really dislike that. I was going through the Empire PDF and was shocked to find that shields had multiple and different effects. Why would shields work differently unit to unit?

mhsellwood
12-07-2015, 06:52
when you go online to discuss it, the first 20 posts of your thread on "should I have charged those Chaos Knights" will have to be a long discussion about your house rules and then getting trolled non-stop because, well, we are on the internet.

Ignoring the rest of this post as I am not convinced of it - I don't play Warhammer because I can play it in many different places and no one that I know does, and when you consider the multiplicity of comp packs available it can often mean that actually it is not the same game between different groups.

I live in hope for the day when most discussions aren't "Should I have a super bulls**t daemon prince, or a super bulls**t Chaos Lord on disc?" or "How can I spend exactly 625 points on core but get some value from it?" but rather "we played a scenario where we agreed that I had to hold a central tower with my duardin against his Chaos army, while Stormcast reinforcements tried to arrive in time to lift the siege. Here's how it went down." That I think would be more interesting, more appealing to a range of players, more inclusive of various play styles and more inspiring.

mhsellwood
12-07-2015, 07:00
I really dislike that. I was going through the Empire PDF and was shocked to find that shields had multiple and different effects. Why would shields work differently unit to unit?

Without wishing to be harsh Buddy Bear, but have you actually read it? You have two types of shields - characters have one that gives them +1 to their save, units have a shield that gives them re-roll 1's on their saves. Ignore all the different names, they are mechanically the same. Just as a further FYI, the Swordsmen have shields giving them re-roll 1's and gain +1 to their save from their swords (described as being a Parry).

Geep
12-07-2015, 07:31
Without wishing to be harsh Buddy Bear, but have you actually read it? You have two types of shields - characters have one that gives them +1 to their save, units have a shield that gives them re-roll 1's on their saves. Ignore all the different names, they are mechanically the same. Just as a further FYI, the Swordsmen have shields giving them re-roll 1's and gain +1 to their save from their swords (described as being a Parry).
Maybe that's it for Empire- I haven't looked too closely at them yet, but take a look at something like Orcs and Goblins:
-Character shields tend to let you re-roll failed saves against anything
-Some shields let you re-roll failed saves in combat only
-Some shields let you re-roll 1's in combat only (and there may be some that let you re-roll 1's at any time)
-Some shields give +1 to your save
-Some shields are also modified by unit size- gaining a +1 save bonus, or other boost, if the unit is big enough.

And that's the options for only 1 race.

There could easily be others I've forgotten- and that's the problem. That's just shields, and I've already forgotten. Actually remembering which unit gets which shield bonuses is madness- and apparently pretty random. It'd have made sense to me if units with a poor save (eg. 6+) gained the +1 save shields, and units with good saves (eg. 4+) gained re-rolls, but no- it's not even that simple.
There's similar issues with two hand weapons- is it +1 attacks? Is it re-rolls to hit? Is it re-rolls of 1 to hit? It can be any- and even some combination- and is different for every unit.
That's completely ignoring the odd redundancy of so many weapon 'options'- do I want to have a 3+/4+, or 4+/3+? It doesn't even matter.

I would (and did) find it easier to memorise 8th edition (with reasonable accuracy) than I would to memorise all of these Warscrolls, because there is no consistency.


I live in hope for the day when most discussions aren't "Should I have a super bulls**t daemon prince, or a super bulls**t Chaos Lord on disc?" or "How can I spend exactly 625 points on core but get some value from it?" but rather "we played a scenario where we agreed that I had to hold a central tower with my duardin against his Chaos army, while Stormcast reinforcements tried to arrive in time to lift the siege. Here's how it went down." That I think would be more interesting, more appealing to a range of players, more inclusive of various play styles and more inspiring.
Scenarios aren't a new thing. I have played many, and loved (some) of them. 8th ed was full of scenarios- though some needed work (Looking at you, Watchtower!). This isn't something new that Age of Sigmar is bringing to the table.
I agree with you that the game had too many 'super bulls**t' things, but I honestly expect no different from Age of Sigmar. In fact, the game is wide open to this kind of abuse- why would you expect the above player type to suddenly tone it down for a system as abusable as AoS?
I also agree with you that the 'core tax' was an issue. I hate that term so much. The core should, by definition, be the heart of the army. Again though, how does Age of Sigmar help here? All it really does is give you the chance to skip core units altogether- which IMO is a massive leap in exactly the wrong direction.

Buddy Bear
12-07-2015, 07:53
Without wishing to be harsh Buddy Bear, but have you actually read it? You have two types of shields - characters have one that gives them +1 to their save, units have a shield that gives them re-roll 1's on their saves. Ignore all the different names, they are mechanically the same. Just as a further FYI, the Swordsmen have shields giving them re-roll 1's and gain +1 to their save from their swords (described as being a Parry).

I did. You just listed three different effects for a single piece of wargear within a single army. I would have preferred a single consistent effect rather than trying to remember which unit has the save bonus and which have the reroll.

iantheace
12-07-2015, 08:35
I think I see what GW was trying to do, and if it works for people, that's awesome. Granted, take my opinion with a few grains of salt. I started playing WFB back in 96-97 (as a 14-15 year old, so don't ever tell me this game didn't used to appeal to members of a younger demographic). Over the years I played Chaos, then Beastmen when the armies split in 3, with some skaven and high elves later on. Moved into 40k in '98 and played both for years until the cost became a bit prohibitive and games took too long. Sold off my armies, got into warmachine and then hordes for setting, streamlined rules, faster play and low cost of entry. Once those appealing aspects went away (except the setting, but they have top notch RPGs for that), I dropped warmahordes. Now I'm actually getting back into 40k (just dabbling really). And I was intrigued by Age of Sigmar. Maybe it would get me back into Warhammer Fantasy?

Nope. Again, I get what they were trying for. Get new players, attempt faster gameplay and have a flexible cost of entry. Essentially they tried for "more taste, less filling." My personal view is that they got "less taste, less filling." Again, if other people love it, great. It's just not for me. For me, if I want a faster game with lower cost that can be easily fun and casual or deep and competitive (and I do), I have X-Wing.

TL/DR: I haven't played warhammer fantasy for close to a decade. AoS is not getting me back. For fast games that can be fun or competitive, I have X-Wing.

You just said how our entire games club who started playing in those years feel!

mhsellwood
12-07-2015, 08:46
Okay, shield saves. All races have two types of shields - a character shield and a unit shield. Within a race the character shields are all the same, and the unit shields are all the same. Orcs and goblins are a little difficult because there are two races, so a total of four types of shields - orc character, orc unit, goblin character, goblin character. Within any given World-that-was race therefore you have to remember two types of shields only, and they are always consistent. I don't think it unreasonable to expect that a player might remember their characters with shield rule versus unit with shield rule.

Re. two weapons. All units that have two weapons get to reroll 1s. Characters are special cases but they are always special snowflakes.

Re. weapon options. Although you might be able to debate whether one is better than another most are real options with different enough uses that they are not directly interchangeable. I would be interested in examples outside of Chaos marauders where the different option makes no real change in how they are best used.

Re. your opponent can now do whatever they want. Yes. But so can you. And if they are interested in just going as hard as possible and so are you, where is the problem? If you have different ideas on what you want out of a game you would have had a bad time in 8th as well. So, maybe agree if you want a narrative fun game, or agree a balancing mechanism and then within that context go loaded for bear. The onus is on the players, not GW, to agree what they want out of the game.

In general the amount you have to remember has actually gone down - the core rules are pretty streamlined so there should not be much discussion over impossible charges, what to do when an eagle prevents hellpit wheeling, how a monster pivots, how skirmishers contract and whether that can make a charge impossible (all real issues we have had within my group). Unit rules are also fairly streamlined in comparison to 8th edition. As an example: Dwarf warrior from 8th ed (core statline, refer main book). Heavy armour (refer main book). Option for great weapons (refer main book). Option for shield ((refer main book for basic save, and also for parry save and when this does not apply and what it does not apply to (additionally refer main rulebook to understand what a special attack is and when a charge is able to be in the flank or rear) also refer main book for interaction with shields). Option for champion (refer stat line). Option for banner and musician (refer main rulebook). Special rules: Ancestral Grudge (refer Army Book for details. Refer main book for rules on Hatred). Shieldwall (refer army book for detail. Refer main book for parry save rule). Relentless (refer Army Book for details). Resolute (refer Army Book for details, refer main book for normal rules on marching). All of this to boiled down to: a bit tougher than a human but slower (with some speed advantage from resolute), and can be equipped to hit hard or take a hit, with a boost if you charge. In Age of Sigmar you have one page of rules. If you have that next to you, then there is no need to refer to anything else other than the basic rules of play all of two pages currently), and the end result is much the same: a bit tougher than a human but slower and able to be equipped to take a hit or hit hard, with a boost when you are defending as a change.

Avian
12-07-2015, 09:48
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Armies have 1 - 4 different types of shields, with 2 - 10 different names. Beastmen are probably the easiest, since they have five different names for shields, but they all do the same, while Orcs & Goblins have ten names for their four types of shields.

Ghachii
12-07-2015, 09:58
In general the amount you have to remember has actually gone down - the core rules are pretty streamlined so there should not be much discussion over impossible charges, what to do when an eagle prevents hellpit wheeling, how a monster pivots, how skirmishers contract and whether that can make a charge impossible (all real issues we have had within my group). Unit rules are also fairly streamlined in comparison to 8th edition. As an example: Dwarf warrior from 8th ed (core statline, refer main book). Heavy armour (refer main book). Option for great weapons (refer main book). Option for shield ((refer main book for basic save, and also for parry save and when this does not apply and what it does not apply to (additionally refer main rulebook to understand what a special attack is and when a charge is able to be in the flank or rear) also refer main book for interaction with shields). Option for champion (refer stat line). Option for banner and musician (refer main rulebook). Special rules: Ancestral Grudge (refer Army Book for details. Refer main book for rules on Hatred). Shieldwall (refer army book for detail. Refer main book for parry save rule). Relentless (refer Army Book for details). Resolute (refer Army Book for details, refer main book for normal rules on marching). All of this to boiled down to: a bit tougher than a human but slower (with some speed advantage from resolute), and can be equipped to hit hard or take a hit, with a boost if you charge. In Age of Sigmar you have one page of rules. If you have that next to you, then there is no need to refer to anything else other than the basic rules of play all of two pages currently), and the end result is much the same: a bit tougher than a human but slower and able to be equipped to take a hit or hit hard, with a boost when you are defending as a change.

This right here is why I'm excited about Age of Sigmar. No more sprawling complexity masquerading as depth. I'm sorry to see the old Warhammer world go, but at least now you don't have to be borderline OCD to get to grips with the rules. There's a fair chance that people will get to play Sigmar with the actual friends that they already have, rather being forced to seek out the 'lucky dip' of personalities in their local area and join a gaming group where the only thing everyone has in common is the patience to master a 528 page rule book.

mhsellwood
12-07-2015, 10:23
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Armies have 1 - 4 different types of shields, with 2 - 10 different names. Beastmen are probably the easiest, since they have five different names for shields, but they all do the same, while Orcs & Goblins have ten names for their four types of shields.

As I have pointed out all races have at most two types of shield, and that mechanically they are consistent within an army between unit types. However many names you put on a shield, they all do the same thing if the race and unit type is consistent. So, you don't have to remember 10 names for shields, you remember that your goblins are a unit, with more than 10 wounds, therefore get +1 to their save while your Orc character gets to re-roll saves because he is a character with a shield (this is from memory for an army that I have never played. It is not a difficult to remember)

Hoffa
12-07-2015, 10:23
This right here is why I'm excited about Age of Sigmar. No more sprawling complexity masquerading as depth. I'm sorry to see the old Warhammer world go, but at least now you don't have to be borderline OCD to get to grips with the rules. There's a fair chance that people will get to play Sigmar with the actual friends that they already have, rather being forced to seek out the 'lucky dip' of personalities in their local area and join a gaming group where the only thing everyone has in common is the patience to master a 528 page rule book.

Obvious troll is obvious. Count how many pages of rules 8:th edition actually has and try again.

Avian
12-07-2015, 10:31
As I have pointed out all races have at most two types of shield,...

Eh? What part of "1 - 4 types of shield" did you not understand? Go read my thread called "Big list of shields".

Holier Than Thou
12-07-2015, 11:05
Okay, shield saves. All races have two types of shields - a character shield and a unit shield. Within a race the character shields are all the same, and the unit shields are all the same. Orcs and goblins are a little difficult because there are two races, so a total of four types of shields - orc character, orc unit, goblin character, goblin character. Within any given World-that-was race therefore you have to remember two types of shields only, and they are always consistent. I don't think it unreasonable to expect that a player might remember their characters with shield rule versus unit with shield rule.

Wrong. Vampire Counts can have a Tomb Shield which gives +1 to saves IF they don't run or charge, a Crypt Shield that gives +1 to saves IF the weapon attacking them is Rend-, a Blood Shield that does the exact same as a Crypt Shield or an Ancient Shield which gives a 3+ save. So that's an army with 4 different types of shield with 3 different effects, still not too difficult to remember. But wait, the Skeleton Warriors description says "Units of Skeleton Warriors also carry a shield for protection, either battered Crypt Shields or tall Tomb Shields."
This doesn't say they all have to have the same shield, my Skeleton models are all modelled with different sized shields so I can get both bonuses on one unit.



Re. your opponent can now do whatever they want. Yes. But so can you. And if they are interested in just going as hard as possible and so are you, where is the problem? If you have different ideas on what you want out of a game you would have had a bad time in 8th as well. So, maybe agree if you want a narrative fun game, or agree a balancing mechanism and then within that context go loaded for bear. The onus is on the players, not GW, to agree what they want out of the game.

And this is a good thing how? I don't play pick up games, I'm lucky enough to have a group of friends who all play, but I can just imagine going into a GW shop and asking a stranger for a game. I put down a Necromancer, he puts down a Chaos Lord, I put down a unit of 20 skeletons, he puts down a unit of 20 warriors, I put down a unit of 20 zombies and declare I'm finished deploying. He spends the next 20 minutes putting down every model he owns. Oh, but I forgot, we can spend half an hour beforehand discussing what we want to play with and how we can decide what is balanced BECAUSE THERE'S NO POINTS FOR ANY MODELS/UNITS!!!! That's really going to speed things up.


In general the amount you have to remember has actually gone down - the core rules are pretty streamlined so there should not be much discussion over impossible charges, what to do when an eagle prevents hellpit wheeling, how a monster pivots, how skirmishers contract and whether that can make a charge impossible (all real issues we have had within my group).

Actually there should be no discussion required at all, everything has 360 degree vision and effectiveness and can move sideways or backwards or diagonally at no penalty with no fear of exposing a flank or rear (which don't exist in the "game" anymore so no need to wheel or pivot. Much simpler but certainly not an improvement on a game of strategy.

heavyheart
12-07-2015, 11:53
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Armies have 1 - 4 different types of shields, with 2 - 10 different names. Beastmen are probably the easiest, since they have five different names for shields, but they all do the same, while Orcs & Goblins have ten names for their four types of shields.

My head hurts just reading that what the fek was wrong with all shields giving +1 to saves, I think they set out to make this as painful as possible so you'd want the newer armies.

Bloodknight
12-07-2015, 11:58
I think when they're done with all the Warscrolls, there will be actually more to remember than in the old game because of all the stuff that has different effects which used to be universal. They just put all the info from the rulebook and army books into the scrolls which makes the system look light on the surface, but it's actually as complicated as it always was...maybe more so.


Gesendet von meinem GT-S7390 mit Tapatalk

benvoliothefirst
12-07-2015, 12:35
One of the coolest things about the 8th edition rulebook, I thought, was the newer, universal names for things like killing blow, etc. Rules that were formerly "warscroll-esque," like Wight Blades for my Grave Guard, were now standard across the game. And of course those types of rules were considered "advanced" rules, that you didn't necessarily HAVE to use for games while you were learning. The first section of the rulebook was just the basic movement, combat, etc. That all seemed pretty simple.

This seems like we've gone backwards, and made the game more complex, with a bunch of rules that only apply to one unit again.

zoggin-eck
12-07-2015, 13:47
I think when they're done with all the Warscrolls, there will be actually more to remember than in the old game because of all the stuff that has different effects which used to be universal. They just put all the info from the rulebook and army books into the scrolls which makes the system look light on the surface, but it's actually as complicated as it always was...maybe more so.


Agreed, lots of apparently streamlined games do this, I guess it's the trade-off for simpler main rules/stats. Look at Song of Blades and Heroes and its many variants - with the simple stats (quality and combat), you end up giving every single model multiple special rules just to show basic things like faster movement, being better at shooting than close combat, toughness and so on. Not saying it's a bad thing anyway, it's just what often comes of low page count "main rules".

Perhaps in this case, as in other games, the idea is that you'll have lots of small unit cards/warscrolls on the table and still refer to them quicker than a rulebook.

Ghachii
12-07-2015, 14:03
Obvious troll is obvious. Count how many pages of rules 8:th edition actually has and try again.

Hardcover: 528 pages
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1841549649/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=0DMADAWRSPHMQR2JPM4E&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=577047927&pf_rd_i=desktop)

Trolling is when you deliberately set out to provoke people just for the sake of it. Clearly not what I'm doing.



I think when they're done with all the Warscrolls, there will be actually more to remember than in the old game because of all the stuff that has different effects which used to be universal. They just put all the info from the rulebook and army books into the scrolls which makes the system look light on the surface, but it's actually as complicated as it always was...maybe more so.

The difference is you only need to remember the special rules from the small number of warscrolls that you're using in any given game. That's just a few pages that you can have printed off and keep right in front of you for reference. Whereas ye olde giant rulebook (TM) puts pressure on you to have at least a general understanding of every special rule in existence before you can even feel comfortable playing the game. And you waste more game time flicking through said rulebook looking up obscure rules.

zoggin-eck
12-07-2015, 14:13
Hardcover: 528 pages


Ghachii, I really do understand the point you made, and half-agree with you, but it's pretty obvious what Hoffa means. "Pages of rules" - Of those 528 pages, a good number of them are art and photographs. (Also ideas and suggestion for 100% non-competitive stuff like scenarios, game-masters, house rules etc. that many people seemed to never read... :))

Ghachii
12-07-2015, 14:42
Ghachii, I really do understand the point you made, and half-agree with you, but it's pretty obvious what Hoffa means. "Pages of rules" - Of those 528 pages, a good number of them are art and photographs. (Also ideas and suggestion for 100% non-competitive stuff like scenarios, game-masters, house rules etc. that many people seemed to never read... :))

Still technically a 528 page rule book. But yes, I'm being pedantic. :D

That said, I was still making a genuine point. It does wind me up a bit when people decide that 'trolling' means 'anything I disagree with'. Using the phrase 'obvious troll is troll' when they clearly aren't is actually genuine trolling. Grrrr.

roperpg
12-07-2015, 14:58
Still technically a 528 page rule book. But yes, I'm being pedantic. :D

That said, I was still making a genuine point. It does wind me up a bit when people decide that 'trolling' means 'anything I disagree with'. Using the phrase 'obvious troll is troll' when they clearly aren't is actually genuine trolling. Grrrr.
We'll be on to 'privilege' next. Or worse, intersectionalism...

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Niall78
12-07-2015, 15:14
I think when they're done with all the Warscrolls, there will be actually more to remember than in the old game because of all the stuff that has different effects which used to be universal. They just put all the info from the rulebook and army books into the scrolls which makes the system look light on the surface, but it's actually as complicated as it always was...maybe more so.


Doesn't this whole mess of remind you of what happened when Wizkids attained the Battletech IP and proceeded to throw the game system and a lot of the history into the bin? Destruction on a grand scale to entice new players to the setting with more 'streamlined' rules.

Take hope from that mess as well Warhammer players. The 'new improved' Battletech eventually crashed and burned - in no small part to a community that completely ignored it - and old Battletech again arose from the ashes and continues onto its third decade.

Mateobard
12-07-2015, 15:18
As someone who has played a couple of "summon" armies, I think you're giving a bit of a false impression of how powerful it is, in the lizardmen army only a Slann can summon additional units, a wizard can only cast each spell once per turn so one Slann cannot cast the summon Saurus guard spell multiple times in one turn. The basic version of the spell only summons 5 TG at once, a while that is ok I wouldn't say it was that much better than either of the basic spells; mystic shield or arcane bolt.

Now sure if you roll an 11 (on 2D6 remember) then you get 10 TG and that is pretty brilliant, but 11+ is fairly rare, in most situations it's going to take 3-4 turns of spell casting for a Slann to bring on 20 TG, in all honesty I don't think it is that broken, esp as you have the opportunity to dispel by getting your own wizard in position. On the other hand if your opponent is showing up with 3-4 Slann then I don't think the problem is the game rules ;)

Note that summoned models count towards your casualty count when they get killed, which can really screw you over if the game goes to time

IMHO you're almost always better off attempting to cast the summon Kroxigor spell anyway because even the Lowe level version summons three of them, and they can make a serious dent in most things when they charge.


Blue Scribes, Keeper.

Win on turn one. Summon Keeper. Keeper summons keeper. Blue scribes help/learn all spells you cast. Spam Gateway. GG. You can literally populate the board with Keepers of Secrets (hey, any base size will do, my keeper is a shape shifter. It looks like a halfling).

Age of Sigmar is so utterly broken it's not even comical. You have to make a supreme effort to have a balanced game.

roperpg
12-07-2015, 15:30
Balanced =/= fun
Imbalanced =/= unenjoyable

It does seem like the only thing that was keeping most Warseer WFB players honest all this time was points values.




Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Inquisitor Kallus
12-07-2015, 15:34
Blue Scribes, Keeper.

Win on turn one. Summon Keeper. Keeper summons keeper. Blue scribes help/learn all spells you cast. Spam Gateway. GG. You can literally populate the board with Keepers of Secrets (hey, any base size will do, my keeper is a shape shifter. It looks like a halfling).

Age of Sigmar is so utterly broken it's not even comical. You have to make a supreme effort to have a balanced game.

Supreme effort? Hardly.

RPers and older wargamers have been doing similar things for years

You seem like youd be great fun to play against if the only thing you care about is winning.
Its funny that there seem to be a few people who have joined Warseer this month. If I was a betting man id wager they joined to slate AoS as much as possible for...reasons.




Balanced =/= fun
Imbalanced =/= unenjoyable

It does seem like the only thing that was keeping most Warseer WFB players honest all this time was points values.




Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk


Very much this :yes:

Scribe of Khorne
12-07-2015, 15:42
Balanced =/= fun
Imbalanced =/= unenjoyable

It does seem like the only thing that was keeping most Warseer WFB players honest all this time was points values.



Actually, yes. Point Systems are about all that keep games from devolving, unless both sides are a mirror.

Mateobard
12-07-2015, 15:43
\


You seem like youd be great fun to play against if the only thing you care about is winning.

Its funny that there seem to be a few people who have joined Warseer this month. If I was a betting man id wager they joined to slate AoS as much as possible for...reasons.

So, instead of recognizing the actual point I was making - that the summoning mechanic is inherently broken, you decide that an Ad Hominem response is your best bet.

The summoning mechanic is broken because you can, by the rules, continue summoning monsters or characters that can also summon when they arrive. Some of those war scrolls also have very powerful spells (for example, the Keeper and Infernal gateway). So, either you agree that this is broken, or you think it's not. Which is it?

But man, you went right for it, didn't you, assuming this is something I'm into or regularly do. I like to play games with good systems that allow two people to come together for a fairly well balanced war game.

Niall78
12-07-2015, 15:48
Actually, yes. Point Systems are about all that keep games from devolving, unless both sides are a mirror.

It's hard to think of a tabletop game that doesn't have a points mechanism for balancing forces. Even games that publish planned scenarios as part of their core mechanics have a points system for pick-up games and to help GMs and players balance scenarios even if some scenarios are designed to be played with unbalanced sides.

Scribe of Khorne
12-07-2015, 15:50
Indeed. Not having a points system is the equal of throwing up ones hands saying 'do what you will!' to me. I just dread that they will do this to 40K as well.

Geep
12-07-2015, 16:17
RPers and older wargamers have been doing similar things for years

Is AoS an RPG? Hardly. There's pretty much no room for character development.
Is the game aimed at older wargamers? Again, hardly. I agree experienced wargamers could probably have a good shot at making a balanced game first time they tried- but why should they? The fundamental rules of the game are too simplistic. It lacks depth and replayability. Unless you have kids you want to be able to play with, what's the draw supposed to be against the many, better, game systems (including oldhammer)?


It does seem like the only thing that was keeping most Warseer WFB players honest all this time was points values.

Honest? Heck no- I know people who used to cheat all the time by fiddling points values in a list. The important thing which points do is provide a system with which you can quickly make a rough estimate of an army's combat effectiveness- then you can compare it with your opponent. Equal combat effectiveness is the norm, but you're free to penalise yourself if you want.
No points values means it's easy for a game to be completely unbalanced, despite player intentions to the contrary. This links with the point below.


You seem like youd be great fun to play against if the only thing you care about is winning.
Winning is the goal of any game. It's not the point of the game though. The point is to have fun. For many people (pretty much every gamer I know, wargamer, boardgamer or other), that fun comes from matching wits with your opponent in attempting to achieve victory. You don't have to be a douche about it- you can laugh when luck goes against you, agree that the interpretation of a rule against your best interest is the best one, or any number of similar sporty things. The important thing is that you're still trying to the best of your ability, and if you lose, it's due to a combination of luck and, most importantly and satisfyingly- your opponent's skill*.
Tying your own hands behind your back in order not to win really undermines this. It's patronising. It's a terrible thing when you must do this just to have a fair game.
I've always found the best games are nail biters, where my opponent and I try our hardest and it comes down to one or two crucial moments of luck. To know that your opponent is holding back just so that you can pretend you have a chance is kind of insulting. To get absolutely steamrolled because forces are imbalanced from the outset is also not fun- for either player, usually (though some do relish victory at any cost).

*Let's put this in other perspectives- if you're a computer gamer, is it fun if your opponent decides to walk away from his computer for 10 minutes just because you're failing so badly? In a race, is it fun for the guy in front to stop at the finishing line, waiting until you get closer before they cross the line? Would it be fun if, in a game of Monopoly, the winning player refused to let you lose and leave and kept you in the game with constant free cash? In any of these situations you may suddenly find yourself the winner** thanks to your opponent's 'generosity', but it's a hollow and, for me (and many others), a dull victory that spoils what little fun there could have been. I'm fine with losing- but let my losses and victories both be my own doing as much as possible.

** Except in Monopoly. Everyone lose there the minute they started playing :p

explorator
12-07-2015, 17:25
It's hard to think of a tabletop game that doesn't have a points mechanism for balancing forces. Even games that publish planned scenarios as part of their core mechanics have a points system for pick-up games and to help GMs and players balance scenarios even if some scenarios are designed to be played with unbalanced sides.

Well, actually their are many historical table-top miniature game systems that do not use points. I understand that in Fantasy miniature gaming points are pretty much ubiquitous, but to make a blanket statement of that sort about miniature gaming in general is just wrong. When GW first started making models, they released units in boxes with a rule-sheet (this is before the rule book) that had no point costs. They obviously moved to a points-based system that more or less worked; but even in a points system there are always problems with the way models/units are costed with some options being much more optimal for the points.

Every new army book or codex is instantly digested by most competitive players with some units instantly being binned. Points does not equal balance, and points can never equal balance in a game with hundreds of units spanning multiple books and documents that are published on an irregular schedule. At large competitive events with paid entry fees and prizes, many player's forces look much alike with a few proven armies dominating. GW has kept an unnatural balance by releasing new codex/army books with new options and models, but do not confuse GW's 'point-based' system with actual balance. My goodness, look at the point costs of the Beastmen Cygor, Ghorgon, and Jabberslythe which suffer from being over costed from never having an 8th edition army book. Most veteran players can point to similar circumstances in other books.

I keep wondering, do quick-start rules need points? Disregarding points for a moment, do most of GW's starter boxes historically contain more or less equal forces for two players?

Scribe of Khorne
12-07-2015, 17:32
No, I would say that they are not more or less equal, at least not the 40K side.

Ghachii
12-07-2015, 17:36
Winning is the goal of any game.

Minecraft?

Sephillion
12-07-2015, 17:48
Balanced =/= fun
Imbalanced =/= unenjoyable

It does seem like the only thing that was keeping most Warseer WFB players honest all this time was points values.


I agree that balance =/= fun. The other part, however... if the imbalance is problematic (as it is with this parody of a game) then yes, imbalance = unfun. I don't expect a game to be perfectly balanced unless both sides are absolute mirrors, but I expect something aiming close to it. Not "take whatever, we don't mind". It's not even about players being WAAC, dishonest, or bad, it's about the fact that without any kind of reference, how do we know what's balanced? Maybe in a few months or ears of play, we'll know better what is balanced. But if I don't ever play against Orcs, then face a new player with his Orc army... how do I know how the force he wants to play is more or less equal to mine? I have no idea. And he might be honestly convinced his force isn't too powerful or too weak - and he might be wrong, lending to a boring or one-sided game.

It's a terrible system.



Re. your opponent can now do whatever they want. Yes. But so can you. And if they are interested in just going as hard as possible and so are you, where is the problem? If you have different ideas on what you want out of a game you would have had a bad time in 8th as well. So, maybe agree if you want a narrative fun game, or agree a balancing mechanism and then within that context go loaded for bear. The onus is on the players, not GW, to agree what they want out of the game.


So in addition to deciding where on the narrative vs competitive scale we both want to play, we need to find common ground on what is considered balanced.

So in addition to knowing my army, I need to know enough of my opponent's army to decide what's balanced and what isn't? With points, even if the balance wasn't at all perfect, at least we knew where most things stood. Without points, I need to know what a unit does, how it synergises with others, etc. People can't decide what's balanced and unbalanced (for instance, IMO the Eldar book is grossly overpowered, but some people argued it was OK).

Ghachii
12-07-2015, 17:52
So in addition to deciding where on the narrative vs competitive scale we both want to play, we need to find common ground on what is considered balanced.

I don't think this is the case at all. Everything we've seen suggests that army comp / force organisation is going to be determined by the individual scenario.

Niall78
12-07-2015, 18:13
Well, actually their are many historical table-top miniature game systems that do not use points. I understand that in Fantasy miniature gaming points are pretty much ubiquitous, but to make a blanket statement of that sort about miniature gaming in general is just wrong.

Historical TT gamers - of which I am one - nearly always play historical scenarios or historical what-ifs that are GMed and balanced beforehand by the victory conditions by the GM or players. You don't play pick-up games or competitive tournament games as a historical TT player. You normally play with a tight-knit group or club. In fact even setting-up a game can take months of planning especially if you are moving to a time-period that requires the club to buy and paint new models and invest in new rule-sets. Equating hardcore historical TT that doesn't require points balancing with general TT gaming systems that involve pick-up or competitive games is dishonest. Of course non-hardcore historical TT games like Flames of War have a points system as they involve both pick-up and competitive games.


When GW first started making models, they released units in boxes with a rule-sheet (this is before the rule book) that had no point costs. They obviously moved to a points-based system that more or less worked; but even in a points system there are always problems with the way models/units are costed with some options being much more optimal for the points.

I remember making dozens armies all balanced by a points system for 40K Rogue Trader. So as soon as GW released actual games they balanced them with a points system. You must be taking about before that when Citadel/GW were just a miniatures company producing figures mainly for D&D.


Every new army book or codex is instantly digested by most competitive players with some units instantly being binned. Points does not equal balance, and points can never equal balance in a game with hundreds of units spanning multiple books and documents that are published on an irregular schedule. At large competitive events with paid entry fees and prizes, many player's forces look much alike with a few proven armies dominating. GW has kept an unnatural balance by releasing new codex/army books with new options and models, but do not confuse GW's 'point-based' system with actual balance. My goodness, look at the point costs of the Beastmen Cygor, Ghorgon, and Jabberslythe which suffer from being over costed from never having an 8th edition army book. Most veteran players can point to similar circumstances in other books.

I keep wondering, do quick-start rules need points? Disregarding points for a moment, do most of GW's starter boxes historically contain more or less equal forces for two players?

Points give a rough balance - nobody said that balance was perfect. In thirty years of TT and board gaming I've yet to see a perfect system. Of course GW points system was frequently broken by GW themselves by the power creep involved in them releasing new miniatures, codexs, etc.. That is not uncommon in many other systems as well so it isn't really a stick to beat them with too badly.

Any game system that involves pick-up games or competitive play requires a points system. If GW is taking WFB down the planned scenario or game-mastered route and dropping pick-up and competitive games they should inform their fan base of that decision. Frankly I think it would be a wrong decision but at least the fans would know where they stand and could change system if they deemed it necessary.

NoobLord
12-07-2015, 18:27
I don't think this is the case at all. Everything we've seen suggests that army comp / force organisation is going to be determined by the individual scenario.

The preview pages of the Age of Sigmar book on the GW site show one of the scenarios - it clearly says players can use whatever models they like but it might be a good idea to have a discussion with your opponent about what you intend to field.

Inquisitor Kallus
12-07-2015, 18:32
Minecraft?

Indeed. Also there is solitaire. Children play games at school with hula hoops, catch and so on. Then there are the games people play where they dont ever win, just get better.

Games can be competitively, but also just for amusement.

Tell me Geep, how do you win at a game of catch?

Scribe of Khorne
12-07-2015, 18:48
Indeed. Also there is solitaire. Children play games at school with hula hoops, catch and so on. Then there are the games people play where they dont ever win, just get better.

Games can be competitively, but also just for amusement.

Tell me Geep, how do you win at a game of catch?

Set a goal. First to catch 10.

Choombatta
12-07-2015, 19:34
Set a goal. First to catch 10.

So the person who throws first always loses.

Hoffa
12-07-2015, 19:41
Still technically a 528 page rule book. But yes, I'm being pedantic. :D

That said, I was still making a genuine point. It does wind me up a bit when people decide that 'trolling' means 'anything I disagree with'. Using the phrase 'obvious troll is troll' when they clearly aren't is actually genuine trolling. Grrrr.

It winds me up when any one post inflammatory comments and they pulls this 'anything I disagree with' when called on it. (Or do you really think that AoS has 264 pages of rules due to this being the number of pages in the book ?)

20phoenix
12-07-2015, 19:45
It worked on me too - but maybe not as AoS centric. I've been interested in WHFB since I was a teenager but never actually played it. A few years back the PC Blood Bowl game hooked me in which eventually led to playing BB as a TT game and now AoS got my curiosity enough for me to finally splash some money on some WHFB figures to play with. The intention is to play a few games with AoS rules and then if I fancy something more in depth on a given day (I will) then I can play some 8th edition. Seems like a good plan to me

Ix't
12-07-2015, 19:49
Who knows maybe the Troglodon is viable now? (Maybe not I haven't got round to my Lizardmen yet).


It's quite good now - potentially one of the faster-charging landbased monsters in the game (same for the Carnosaur after it inflicts a wound), from what I can tell. If any of its D3 Damage-2 shots hit & wound it's granted +3" to its charge against the unit(s) in question.

Summon Troglodon, place 9.00001" away from unit, shoot, hit, wound, cause damage, now effectively only needing a 7 to charge. Hunter's Steed will grant +1 to charge, Skink Priest's Celestial Rites allow a charge reroll, Tetto'eko is always good for re-rolls & directly modifying dice rolls, Trog's classed as a Skink for purposes of Skink Chief's command ability (+1 to hit), etc. Nice toolbox unit, there... and it has a 2" range for all of its melee attacks (except the Skink atop).

Dark Elf
12-07-2015, 19:57
It was.

...

:cries:

Still is ;)

Inquisitor Kallus
12-07-2015, 20:31
Set a goal. First to catch 10.

Why?

Why cant we just keep going till dinner time? Keep going till we want to do something else?
Why does it have to be 10? Who cares who the 'winner' is? The people playing might just want to do it to improve their catching skills, have fun and be a bit social..

Bloodknight
12-07-2015, 22:17
Doesn't this whole mess of remind you of what happened when Wizkids attained the Battletech IP and proceeded to throw the game system and a lot of the history into the bin? Destruction on a grand scale to entice new players to the setting with more 'streamlined' rules.

Take hope from that mess as well Warhammer players. The 'new improved' Battletech eventually crashed and burned - in no small part to a community that completely ignored it - and old Battletech again arose from the ashes and continues onto its third decade.
Yeah. That said, MWDA outsold CBT by an order of magnitude in the beginning, because clix-games were popular at the time. They made about 7 million miniatures for it, but sold squat all to the existing fanbase. So for Wizkids it was a success until it imploded after about 3 years when CBT took over again properly, but badly weakened. Fanpro failed to tell people that MWDA was not a replacement for CBT, but a parallel product by a different publisher. The fans believed that BT had been killed off and the classic barely recovered. But at least it did not die like DA [emoji3] .

Gesendet von meinem GT-S7390 mit Tapatalk

Kisanis
12-07-2015, 22:49
Set a goal. First to catch 10.

How can you call that a game, you had to make a houserule to give it some sort of goal.

/sarcasm

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

Niall78
12-07-2015, 23:14
Yeah. That said, MWDA outsold CBT by an order of magnitude in the beginning, because clix-games were popular at the time. They made about 7 million miniatures for it, but sold squat all to the existing fanbase. So for Wizkids it was a success until it imploded after about 3 years when CBT took over again properly, but badly weakened. Fanpro failed to tell people that MWDA was not a replacement for CBT, but a parallel product by a different publisher. The fans believed that BT had been killed off and the classic barely recovered. But at least it did not die like DA [emoji3] .


It was a money machine for Wizkids for a few years. Until the whole thing imploded. A disaster for the 'real' Battletech. Although it was already weakened by a few years of neglect by FASA the damage caused by the Wizkids IP takeover nearly killed the line. If I remember rightly there was no hope of new content for over a year until Fanpro bought the rights from Wizkids for the 'classic' game. Fanpro were a pale shadow of Fasa at the height of their powers - Battletech lost major market share and never recovered it. Still has a very vibrant community and Catalyst Game Labs is still pushing the time-line forward and releasing new product.

Why did Wizkids not bother too much about twenty years of game history when they took the IP? Fairly simple I'd say. They were kings of clix-games - they knew if they matched their clix with a very strong IP they'd make money by the barrow load. The good thing was they respected the setting enough not to nuke it or reset it - they just jumped seventy-five years and set their new game then. The also respected the old fan base enough to licence out the parts of the old IP they didn't want - namely the original game and time setting.

Why did GW do what they did to the WFB IP? Frankly I don't have any idea. It just seems destruction on a grand scale to achieve seemingly little. Are they expecting a Wizkids/clixytech money bonanza from these extraordinary changes? Why shatter a universe so seeped in lore, fluff and back story and famous in tabletop gaming history?

Spiney Norman
12-07-2015, 23:22
Well I got my AoS models today, the chaos crew from the starter, the models are absolutely incredible, and while I don't loath AoS with the intense passion that some here have demonstrated, it did make me a little sad that WFB will never see any new models of the quality demonstrated in the AoS boxed set, they really could just have released a new wfb edition with Sigmarines as a new wfb army and released the phenomenal new blood Reavers as chaos marauders. We could be in a new golden age of wfb if only GW understood the gaming industry.

Maybe, just maybe, GW will turn AoS around before too long, but in all honesty if the kind of prices we've seen in this week's preorder column are going to be typical (as I assume they are) then however good the game gets, it's all looking a little too hot for me.

Shandor
12-07-2015, 23:32
Why?

Why cant we just keep going till dinner time? Keep going till we want to do something else?
Why does it have to be 10? Who cares who the 'winner' is? The people playing might just want to do it to improve their catching skills, have fun and be a bit social..

It still has rules. You have to touch the other.. and , like we played it, there was a safe zone.
If you play the AoS version of catch it would be: You dont need to touch the others you can just choose one, even peoples are at home and dont know you are playing and the safe zone is where ever you like. :)

Bigman
12-07-2015, 23:44
I'm in the camp of a game having a winner and loser.

Catch us a game, but you win if you keep catching. If you drop the ball you lose the game, even if you're the one playing. Generally speaking games came from a history of trying to be competitive, but not actually going to war...that is the origin of competitive sports maybe less so games, but an analogy can be made.

I've just been inured to AoS now. I will never try it for it is the face of what stopped my game from ever growing anew.

I do agree that some of these models would have been great in fantasy. Wouldn't have even minded a round base tray like Wotr.

Oh well, I'll just keep coming here to read about good vs evil...or Whfb vs AoS.

Scribe of Khorne
12-07-2015, 23:50
So the person who throws first always loses.

No, and you assume thats the only rule. Thats like Tennis not having Break Points and such.

Scribe of Khorne
12-07-2015, 23:53
Why?

Why cant we just keep going till dinner time? Keep going till we want to do something else?
Why does it have to be 10? Who cares who the 'winner' is? The people playing might just want to do it to improve their catching skills, have fun and be a bit social..

You can also just bounce it off a wall.

I also grew out of 'catch' by the time I was 10, oddly enough my son did as well.

Oddly enough, the kids around here all start making rules for their games, by the time they are old enough to reason (6ish?) that a game with no rules, no structure, is pointless (without points..it will never get old!)

Games with depth require structure, and rules. This is simply a given to me. Remove the structure and rules, and restrictions, and you have a mess that while entertaining potentially in the short term, will not have staying power.

roperpg
13-07-2015, 00:00
I know mathematicians, physicists, biologists and programmers would scoff at the claim that you can't have complex results or processes without complex rules...

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Flipmode
13-07-2015, 00:00
That is not sufficiently odd.

When children are deciding on fair teams for a game do they require a points score to be attached to each player, or are they capable of working it out?

Spiney Norman
13-07-2015, 00:05
That is not sufficiently odd.

When children are deciding on fair teams for a game do they require a points score to be attached to each player, or are they capable of working it out?

Now there's and interesting idea, perhaps both players should put all their models on the table at the start of the game, roll off to see who goes first and then alternate picking one unit each until there are no units left, but then I guess there would still be the unit that nobody really wants on their team that always gets picked last...

Also, as a general observation, kids are never after fair teams, they are after their team winning.

SteveW
13-07-2015, 00:12
You can also just bounce it off a wall.



I also grew out of 'catch' by the time I was 10, oddly enough my son did as well.



Oddly enough, the kids around here all start making rules for their games, by the time they are old enough to reason (6ish?) that a game with no rules, no structure, is pointless (without points..it will never get old!)



Games with depth require structure, and rules. This is simply a given to me. Remove the structure and rules, and restrictions, and you have a mess that while entertaining potentially in the short term, will not have staying power.


That's weird, I'm in my late 30s and still play catch with my friends and brothers regularly. How does someone ever "grow out" of something so simple?

Geep
13-07-2015, 01:29
Indeed. Also there is solitaire. Children play games at school with hula hoops, catch and so on. Then there are the games people play where they dont ever win, just get better.

Games can be competitively, but also just for amusement.

Tell me Geep, how do you win at a game of catch?
I question the use of the term 'game' for the above, but regardless- you win if you succeed at the challenge. You win if you can get the full deck out in Solitaire. You win if you can keep the hoola hoop up for longer than previously. You win if you can keep catching the ball. Even in Minecraft- you win if you can survive the monsters and advance your character's equipment/ environment/ etc.
Some games are a challenge against yourself. Some are a challenge against a computer, or similar lifeless thing. Some games- where Warhammer fits- are a challenge against another human opponent.
Whatever the style of game, the goal is always one of achieving to the best of your ability. Maybe it's fun once in a while to have a muck-around game where you set yourself a low but amusing goal, but a game can't survive for long on that alone- and even then, you're probably trying to achieve that silly goal as well as you can.


I know mathematicians, physicists, biologists and programmers would scoff at the claim that you can't have complex results or processes without complex rules...
Agreed, but from my point of view, complexity of the rules isn't an issue. Many different effects, varying for each weapon, each shield, plus a tonne of special rules- for every unit- in every army. This game has complexity- maybe too much. The rules are still bad, however. A good game doesn't need to be complex, but equally complexity doesn't make a game good.

Mateobard
13-07-2015, 01:50
Playing catch is a bad example. Catch isn't competitive, it's collaborative. It's you and me throwing a ball to one another for leisure or practice or both. its not actually a game in the strictest sense, even though we play catch.

Similarly, we can play any number of collaborative board games. Arkham Asylum springs to mind, as does Cthulu. These games are a game because the players are pitted against an "engine" that operates as an antagonist. However, you can still lose a game or win a game, and the victory (and thus loss) conditions are clear.

A war game, or skirmish game, is inherently competitive. Much like a martial arts match, my winning means you lose. It's trinary technically, because we can fight to a draw. However, it's still a battle where I am attempting to defeat your army (win) in battle.

SteveW
13-07-2015, 01:59
Really? No joke? You still play Catch? I mean i play it with my Daughter sometimes but with my Friends? Oo

BTW you are one of the guys that like playing AoS too right?


Yeah man, Frisbee, football, baseball, we play catch with anything. We also BBQ every weekend though so it goes with the territory.

I do like AoS too, not even close to how much I like 8th, but I like it.

Scribe of Khorne
13-07-2015, 02:51
That is not sufficiently odd.

When children are deciding on fair teams for a game do they require a points score to be attached to each player, or are they capable of working it out?

rofl...not even a month ago my son was saying 'we played soccer today, but the other team wouldnt play unless me and sam had less players on our team' its almost like kids DO understand a points system, inherently!

Shandor
13-07-2015, 09:04
rofl...not even a month ago my son was saying 'we played soccer today, but the other team wouldnt play unless me and sam had less players on our team' its almost like kids DO understand a points system, inherently!

Haha i like that :)

Spiney Norman
13-07-2015, 09:57
rofl...not even a month ago my son was saying 'we played soccer today, but the other team wouldnt play unless me and sam had less players on our team' its almost like kids DO understand a points system, inherently!

Sounds like a perfect example of kids trying to unbalance a game in their favour, which was kind of my point, for someone whose main aim is to win, a fair matchup is generally leaving too much to chance ;)

Niall78
13-07-2015, 10:01
Sounds like a perfect example of kids trying to unbalance a game in their favour, which was kind of my point, for someone whose main aim is to win, a fair matchup is generally leaving too much to chance ;)

That's why games need rules and structures. Without them any game degenerates into a free-for-all mess.

Kisanis
13-07-2015, 11:03
rofl...not even a month ago my son was saying 'we played soccer today, but the other team wouldnt play unless me and sam had less players on our team' its almost like kids DO understand a points system, inherently!


That's why games need rules and structures. Without them any game degenerates into a free-for-all mess.
Most games have set team numbers needed for in the field. You therefore use a common pool of players and a randomized pick first in the hopes that the players even out.

Professional sports have points, usually rated in the millions of dollars with salary caps.

So AoS would be ok if the said
"Lay your models out beside your opponents, you each get 10 warscrolls"

Actually... that would be very entertaining.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

EcceNoHomo
13-07-2015, 11:59
This whole conversation is absurd. You could always play for a laugh, always play with whimsical armies, always play narrative games, always involve humour, always play unevenly matched armies off against one another etc.

The problem is that now, you can only do this. It's somewhat ironic that there are people here complaining about competitive attitudes towards wargaming, rules lawyering etc. when it seems that these must have been the very people unable to think outside the box until AOS came along! I have very often played with my friends for the laugh, very often had tight, exciting battles where no one can remember who won a week later, and guess what, me and my friends always enjoyed the list building, points-related aspects of these games. As far as me and my friends go, it is now harder to have a relaxed, fun, narrative game, since we don't know where to start. Anyway, apart from all of that the rules are rubbish. Not that I care, I'll be playing 8th for tactical/fun games and 3rd for crazy/ fun/narrative games. 3rd is SO much better than AOS in that regard.

Bizarrely, after a seven year absence I am getting back into 40K too. Maybe that was GW's plan all along.

Hoffa
13-07-2015, 13:29
This. I don't know about other countries but here in Sweden we obnoxious tournament gamers used to put on all kinds events. Sometimes the comp pack basically was made so everyone had to use really crappy lists. Great fun. (With the points as baseline it was possible to make everyone's list about equally crappy so there still was a game only with really odd units)

Inquisitor Kallus
13-07-2015, 16:09
Playing catch is a bad example. Catch isn't competitive, it's collaborative. It's you and me throwing a ball to one another for leisure or practice or both. its not actually a game in the strictest sense, even though we play catch.

Similarly, we can play any number of collaborative board games. Arkham Asylum springs to mind, as does Cthulu. These games are a game because the players are pitted against an "engine" that operates as an antagonist. However, you can still lose a game or win a game, and the victory (and thus loss) conditions are clear.

A war game, or skirmish game, is inherently competitive. Much like a martial arts match, my winning means you lose. It's trinary technically, because we can fight to a draw. However, it's still a battle where I am attempting to defeat your army (win) in battle.

And it's still a game.


game1
ɡeɪm/
noun
1.
a form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules.
synonyms: match, contest, tournament, meeting, sports meeting, meet, event, athletic event, fixture, tie, cup tie, test match, final, cup final, play-off; More
2.
an activity that one engages in for amusement.
"a computer game"
synonyms: pastime, diversion, entertainment, amusement, distraction, divertissement, recreation, sport, activity, leisure activity; More
adjective
1.
eager or willing to do something new or challenging.
"they were game for anything"
synonyms: brave, courageous, valiant, plucky, bold, intrepid, stout-hearted, lionhearted, unafraid, daring, dashing, spirited, mettlesome; More
verb
1.
play at games of chance for money.
"a gaming machine"
synonyms: gamble, bet, place bets, lay bets, wager, stake money; More
2.
manipulate (a situation), typically in a way that is unfair or unscrupulous.
"it was very easy for a few big companies to game the system"


So, everyone trying to say non competitvie games arent really games....youre wrong, period.
A wargane can very much be a collaborative effort, far too many people cant look past the ME VS YOU!! mentality. Its not the only type of game in town.

Catch is not a game in the strictest sense? It is, sorry to tell you that.

I think the thing a number of people need to realise is that there are people who enjoy AoS. Theyve played, had fun, and nothing you say or do changes that. It's not an argument where you need to win people over. I imagine some may get bored of the game at some point and move on, thats ok, its their choice.

Reinholt
13-07-2015, 16:20
This whole conversation is absurd. You could always play for a laugh, always play with whimsical armies, always play narrative games, always involve humour, always play unevenly matched armies off against one another etc.

The problem is that now, you can only do this...

This is also precisely the trend I am seeing manifest around here. It is strange but true: by removing rules, the game becomes less free. Now, if players want a competitive, balanced matchup, they have to do a significant amount of work to do it themselves.

The net result here is that a grand total of zero people in my gaming group (we play 40k, X-Wing, Armada, and Malifaux) are picking up Age of Sigmar, and several of us are scaling back 40k as it seems GW is totally willing to blow up major games and go pants-on-head regarding design.

Or, in tl;dr form: I have a full time job. If GW can't be bothered to balance a game they expect to use to sell me models, I'm not buying anything unless I coincidentally want those models for other games; my time is more valuable than GW's in this regard.

Scribe of Khorne
13-07-2015, 16:24
This is exactly how I am seeing it.

Back to my son's soccer example folks: Sam and my Son where Terminators to the opponents Marines.

In AoS, you could see a scroll with 5 Terminators, and 5 Marines, would it be fair? No.

Mateobard
13-07-2015, 17:08
And it's still a game.




Sure. The second Beetlejuice movie was also a film, for certain values of film.

But you missed the main point. It's not a game in the context of a fantasy war game, and only vaguely fills the definition at all. In either case. It's a game of questionable quality in any context. It's not a work of genius, it's not some sort of revolution in war gaming, it's just sort of lazy.

Tokyo
13-07-2015, 17:33
This whole conversation is absurd. You could always play for a laugh, always play with whimsical armies, always play narrative games, always involve humour, always play unevenly matched armies off against one another etc.

Not in my experience.

40K 3rd to 5th (6th) edition and many of current gaming scenes around games like X-Wing, Infinity, etc.. simply don't allow it. The tiny minority of tournament players dominate all the airwaves and set the defacto-standard of how things ought to be.

Go to any organised X-Wing gaming-event and try to throw in a "captured" TIE-Fighter into your Rebel-Squadron for giggles. Not gonna happen.

And what's worse, is the "I'll table you"-approach to gaming, where any game is considered "fair game", as long as it is "withing the rules", even if it isn't much fun for your opponent to play. 40K "netlists" are a prime example of this sort of skewed priority people have too long brought to the table and that rightly needed a major shake-up to change.

SimaoSegunda
13-07-2015, 18:12
I never thought about it until I played AoS, but I think points values took away some of my ability to build fun or fluffy, or even just toned down, armies.

I dont play in a massively competitive meta, but I realise now that when building armies to a points limit, I've felt like I'm cheating my opponent out of a challenge if I don't build at least a points-efficient list for a game. I've also felt like I can't take XYZ unit, eg dryads in the 8th ed WE book, because glade or eternal guard were a better use of my core points, for example. Or, if I've wanted to take a savage Orc army, I felt like I couldn't use the SO boar Boyz, because they were flat out worse than the equivalent points of ordinary boar Boyz, and I would be gimping myself.

I think in some respects a points system encourages a points-efficient Listbuilding approach. I can now build theme armies much more freely, without feeling like I'm wasting points, or handicapping myself.

Red Skullz
13-07-2015, 18:28
I thought this was the "AoS worked on me" thread not the "AoS DID not work on me". Several here have re-stated their stance several times. I think we all get where you're at, thank you :)

Regarding OP. AoS worked not only on me but also for the majority of my group which is primarily a 40k/BB base of players. Smaller entry point and easy (+ free) ruleset does the trick for us as we're all very busy with RL and hobby time is always the first to go when "we" make priorities at home ;)

Galain
13-07-2015, 20:25
I thought this was the "AoS worked on me" thread not the "AoS DID not work on me". Several here have re-stated their stance several times. I think we all get where you're at, thank you :)

People are free to put their experiences forward, and they are no less valuable or worthy of being heard than your own. I think we all get where YOU'RE at as well.

Red Skullz
13-07-2015, 20:55
Indeed, we're not in disagreement there. Just keep it in the appropriate thread as all AoS threads doesn't have to be couped by those not liking the game.

Bloodknight
14-07-2015, 09:05
40K 3rd to 5th (6th) edition and many of current gaming scenes around games like X-Wing, Infinity, etc.. simply don't allow it. The tiny minority of tournament players dominate all the airwaves and set the defacto-standard of how things ought to be.

Trust me, it will be the same with AOS once a team with enough clout figures out a way to play the game so you can play it anywhere. It's either that or there will not be an actual community for the game, but lots of disconnected groups that play something based on AOS, but not AOS (houserules tend to have a way to multiply), which will limit its appeal. GW games are usually not that good compared to other games in their segment, but they're easy to learn and you can play them anywhere without much of a discussion. That's not really true for AOS because it's so free-form. I still believe that it needs some kind of defined army building set to have replay value beyond a few games.

Tyelacoirii
14-07-2015, 10:06
Keeping it short - for those having fun are you getting balanced games? Or is one side crushing the other and are you shrugging because, to be fair, that usually happened in fantasy anyway?

If there were points and you measured from the base rather than the model (which is just terrible game design) I would buy in. As it is I will wait and see for the next six months of releases. With the legacy scrolls I feel you are involved in a beta test to find out what units are worth and thereby create match ups which at least give the illusion of skill rather than producing walkovers.

The_Real_Chris
14-07-2015, 10:51
I never thought about it until I played AoS, but I think points values took away some of my ability to build fun or fluffy, or even just toned down, armies.

To state the obvious that is not a points issue but a design issue. Take GW's epic armeggeddon system. Each list was built and pointed for certain play styles and so have few and sometimes none poor choices. The marine list does certain play styles. It doesn't do a marine tank army style, so another list was designed to allow tanks/heavy mech styles. And so on. Net result, look at the epic UK lists page and there are a couple of dozen possible army styles available to marines, most of them deliberately fluffy.

GW could have fixed it, they decided, not being a games company, there was no need...

mrknify
16-07-2015, 03:29
More accessible size? Are you trolling? I used to run at 2500 points almost every game, I now have to field close to 6-7k(or what would have been) to compete with what the other guy is bringing.
Then there is my army.... 2 units 50 gnoblars each. Time for some fun.

Lol.

big squig
16-07-2015, 03:59
This whole conversation is absurd. You could always play for a laugh, always play with whimsical armies, always play narrative games, always involve humour, always play unevenly matched armies off against one another etc.

The problem is that now, you can only do this.

Yes, thank-you. I don't get people praising GW for dropping points. "it lets us play whatever we want!"

Um...what was stopping you from doing that with your fiends in 8th edition? Or 7th, or 6th, or 40k, or flames of war, or warmachine, or magic, or monopoly?

I'd rather be given a complete and balanced game that I can play with anyone. If my friends and I want to house-rule or play a unbalanced narrative game, WE will do that. I don't need GW to do it for me. I DO need them to write a complete and balanced game though.

Ayin
16-07-2015, 04:09
This whole conversation is absurd. You could always play for a laugh, always play with whimsical armies, always play narrative games, always involve humour, always play unevenly matched armies off against one another etc.

The problem is that now, you can only do this.

This. So much this.

And the argument against this seems to be that the big-bad meany tournament players wouldn't let anyone play a different way than what they/the rules said, so GW was needed to step in and stop big-brother competitive play from picking on little just-for-fun gamer.

big squig
16-07-2015, 04:15
Not in my experience.

40K 3rd to 5th (6th) edition and many of current gaming scenes around games like X-Wing, Infinity, etc.. simply don't allow it. The tiny minority of tournament players dominate all the airwaves and set the defacto-standard of how things ought to be.

Go to any organised X-Wing gaming-event and try to throw in a "captured" TIE-Fighter into your Rebel-Squadron for giggles. Not gonna happen.

And what's worse, is the "I'll table you"-approach to gaming, where any game is considered "fair game", as long as it is "withing the rules", even if it isn't much fun for your opponent to play. 40K "netlists" are a prime example of this sort of skewed priority people have too long brought to the table and that rightly needed a major shake-up to change.

Well, to be fair, don't walk into a group full of strangers and expect them to ignore the rules. Everyone showed up to play a game, and it's the game they read when they read the rulebook.
If you want to play a game with a captured tie-fighter (which sounds cool and I would totally play that with you), do it with friends. Or, simply ask if anyone is up for that. Asking for that in the middle of an organized event is nutso though.

Buddy Bear
16-07-2015, 05:55
This is also precisely the trend I am seeing manifest around here. It is strange but true: by removing rules, the game becomes less free. Now, if players want a competitive, balanced matchup, they have to do a significant amount of work to do it themselves.

The net result here is that a grand total of zero people in my gaming group (we play 40k, X-Wing, Armada, and Malifaux) are picking up Age of Sigmar, and several of us are scaling back 40k as it seems GW is totally willing to blow up major games and go pants-on-head regarding design.

Or, in tl;dr form: I have a full time job. If GW can't be bothered to balance a game they expect to use to sell me models, I'm not buying anything unless I coincidentally want those models for other games; my time is more valuable than GW's in this regard.

I was planning on collecting an Undead Legion and Bretonnian army before I heard about Age of Sigmar, but as soon as I did I dropped those plans. For 40k, I'd already begun collecting Adeptus Mechanicus, Necrons, and Imperial Guard, but as soon as I saw the awful Age of Sigmar rules, I suspected just that, that 40k could potentially suffer the same fate, so I eBayed the Adeptus Mechanicus and Necrons and will soon sell the Imperial Guard as well. On top of which, I've had an X-Wing and Armada box sitting around collecting dust. I think it's time to crack them open and read those rules, as GW isn't a game company a customer can sincerely have any confidence in anymore.

Feefait
16-07-2015, 07:00
Up until recently I only played 40k, Dark Eldar to be specific. The other day I was in my local GW, just perusin' and chatting about Arkham Knight, when one of the guys asked me and another customer if we'd played Age of Sigmar yet. We both said no, and so we both sat down for a demo game. All the worries people are having seem pretty unfounded, and WHFB must of been really, really fun, because I had an absolute BLAST with Age of Sigmar, even though I was crushed by the other guy. I immediately proceeded to buy some Vampire Counts Skeleton Warriors, because hey, I play Dark Eldar!

So what I'm saying is that Age of Sigmar, and it's more accessible size and rules, seems to hook new Fantasy players, and it's really fun.

Glad you like it. Had this been another game mode, or game, like MOrdheim or whatever it probabl would have been great. For many of us though, and I hate to say it (you kinda did) this is NOT WHFB, this is AoS. Different games. This is Warhammer Fantasy Skirmish. And it is still ridiculously expensive. OS bad that even though we old heads now have jobs and kids and can afford to buy the models we refuse to and are not teaching our kids the game or getting them into it. Wizards of the Coast kind of redid their whole system with the latest Dungeons and Dragons after the debatable success of the last edition. It brought together generations and seems to have done the trick. I'm not sure in the long run AoS will prove a success story. I hope it works, but I kind of want my "real" Warhammer back.

Sephillion
16-07-2015, 14:33
Well, to be fair, don't walk into a group full of strangers and expect them to ignore the rules. Everyone showed up to play a game, and it's the game they read when they read the rulebook.
If you want to play a game with a captured tie-fighter (which sounds cool and I would totally play that with you), do it with friends. Or, simply ask if anyone is up for that. Asking for that in the middle of an organized event is nutso though.

This. When you play with strangers, whether in PUGs or during an organized events, it’s normal to follow the rules, it’s what makes pick-up games and such events work in the first place. You’re certainly welcome to ask if you want to play differently…