PDA

View Full Version : A question to the 'older' gamers concerning AoS?



The Anarchist
12-07-2015, 21:44
I'm going to open this post with a short story to phrase it in way i hope makes me use of the phrase 'older gamers' a lil less likely to get me shot.

I first started playing warhammer as my father did, there were always a few models laying around the house half painted, or a dice under the couch etc. however i still remember my dad taking me in store letting me run riot to choose my models, and both he and the at the time manager saying you'll never understand how great warhammer was before this new 4th edition stuff came along.' truth is i never once played anything before 4th, yet after todays trip in store to at least give this AoS a go i finaly understood what they were saying.

I guess the question of all this, is the AoS new system in much the same way as 4th ed completely changing warhammer a pattern, of we all just like what we started/came into a game with or do you feel that many peoples dislike for the new system based on actual balanced assessment of the game?

For the record I've now played the AoS and rather felt I'd gone from playing 3 tier chess to playing Snap. when i was then told the cost of 20 models i also laughed thinking the redshirt was laughing....was awkward when i realized he wasn't. so am i being an Ahole and just clinging to what i know or is this just a usual thing other more experienced gamers of earlier Warhammer saw and eventualy came to enjoy and play the new system?

HelloKitty
12-07-2015, 21:53
People hate change for one.

When D&D 3rd edition hit the world in 2000 there was a lot of angst and venom towards its creators. The AD&D crowd vowed to never spend a dime on this blatant money grab that was unnecessary.

When D&D 4th ed hit - same thing.

Is it a pattern? I'd say the only thing you can be sure of in the world as far as gaming is concerned is that once stock holders become a part of something - you can count on change because if a product stops making money thats what will happen to it.

Finnigan2004
12-07-2015, 22:01
While people hate change, this is more than just change. GW replaced a beloved game system with some sort of cooperative theater with miniatures that can only very generously be considered a game, if one has no concern with the competitive aspect of playing a game. I think that the game is easy to assess. Most people have reasons to like it or dislike it. I think that there are many who are holding on due to brand loyalty, and it will be interesting to see which way that domino falls because I think that the whole system is sort of teetering. My guess is that it could be a system that sells as much, or nearly as much as before; or it could be "new Coke".

HelloKitty
12-07-2015, 22:33
I'm not really loyal to GW as a brand. I am however loyal to my freetime and trying to play other games requires massive recruiting efforts and its honestly not worth it to me to do so.

So I play AoS. I'm also still playing 8th.

SteveW
12-07-2015, 22:35
I'm not really loyal to GW as a brand. I am however loyal to my freetime and trying to play other games requires massive recruiting efforts and its honestly not worth it to me to do so.

So I play AoS. I'm also still playing 8th.

I've found that playing multiple games makes it easier to get a game in whenever I want one. I have one of those massive pack1520 cases that caries a warhammer army, warnahordes army, infinity army, and star trek fleet in it. There's always one of those things going on at the game store.

Avian
12-07-2015, 22:52
I guess the question of all this, is the AoS new system in much the same way as 4th ed completely changing warhammer a pattern, of we all just like what we started/came into a game with or do you feel that many peoples dislike for the new system based on actual balanced assessment of the game?
I believe fewer people would have liked this if it had come from an entirely different publisher. From what I can gather, a good portion of those who like it wanted a simpler game to play with their Warhammer minis, and I can't believe very many of them would have tried AoS if it was made by Company X and GW still made Warhammer. The rules ... well, they are certainly not better than any other 4-page ruleset I have seen, and it's worse than many. If the average Warseerite sat down for an evening and wrote 4 pages of miniature gaming rules, they'd be on par with this. You'd get a came with some entertainment value and some tactics to it, but like AoS it would pale in comparison to quality rule sets.

On the other hand, it would never have attracted this much hatred if its release didn't cause Warhammer to get cancelled. It probably doesn't deserve as much hatred as it does, but it's telling how many house rules even those people who really like it will introduce. I read a battle report from one of the most positive guys on the Norwegian Warhammer forums, and he's playing with a system for calculating point costs for the minis, measuring from bases, no shooting if you're in combat, no summoning (he had VC), and more.

If this is what the really positive guys do, I think it's fair to say that this ruleset is worse than 8th edition (whether 8th was better than 7th is still up for debate).

Shandor
12-07-2015, 22:54
Im really up for new things. I liked the New Xcom much more then the Old one, and i was a HUGE fan of the old one.
I like the new Civilization much more then the older Civs.
I like the 8th Edition and even was a friend of the End times.

The thing is.. the new stuff needs to be good. And AoS is not good in any way. There are a few ideas i really like but if you take a step back and watch the full Picture.. its just a mess. AoS is so unfinished that a group of Peoples would need q couple of month working on it every day to fix it.
I think it would be more easy to just trash it and make it new.. less work...

@ Avian: Sure if it would not be from GW i would take a look.. a good laugh and continue playing 8th Edition in the GW store waiting for the 9th Edition.. and ignore AoS alltogether. But i would not be angry in any way. :)

frankelee
12-07-2015, 23:11
People hate terrible products that are crappy and cheaply made for one.

As has been noted, if this rule set was put out by any other company, or as part of a Kickstarter, they'd be laughed off the internet and none of the people using their bodies to shield GW's reputation would care in the slightest about it. But there's going to be a certain desperate type of person who will laugh loudly at all of GW's bad jokes, and bat their eyelashes while listening intently to all of GW's boring stories, and lie to themselves about having fun playing a GW game that checkers players roll their eyes at for lack of depth. It's not the first time something like this has happened, a well known entity puts out a game/record/book/law/etc. that actually kind of sucks hard, and then you see the same old arguments over and over about it between the invested fans who realize it sucks, and the fanbois who identify with the maker to the point they will make fools of themselves fawning over how great it is, and arguing all sorts of nonsense with anybody smart enough to know better.

Spiney Norman
12-07-2015, 23:33
If this is what the really positive guys do, I think it's fair to say that this ruleset is worse than 8th edition (whether 8th was better than 7th is still up for debate).

For what it's worth I don't think there is any debate on that one, 7th edition was an absolute abortion of an edition and you couldn't pay me to play another game of "power-creep-hammer". 6th edition is debatably better than 8th because it was essentially a more balanced version of 7th where smaller units were still viable, there might be a couple of things you'd want to retrofit into the 6E rules from 7th (like abolishing 'battery' wizards), but in the main the changes mattered little or were just bad (moving from 4 wide ranks to 5), and the 7E army books were dreadfully unbalanced (noteworthy: HE, DE & DoC).

roperpg
12-07-2015, 23:48
@OP, the biggest problem is that no edition alterations to WFB were of the magnitude 8th to AoS is. WFB was always ostensibly the 'block unit battle game', no matter which edition.
So for a start, there is zero familiarity to the ruleset.
The reduction of hit/wound rolls to constant stats with no reference to difference in stats or tables on a very basic level suggests a step backwards, which is automatically taken as simplifying/dumbing down/ whatever.
Unit movement and interaction is completely different. The familiar trope of a mounted character smashing into a light infantry unit and treating it like a speed bump are gone. So are many others. People have gotten used to mentally assigning specific roles to types of units which will backfire.
AoS is a different game, the mechanics are different so the effectiveness is different so you have to play it differently.
What has happened in the main is some have tried it vanilla, some have extensively houseruled it, THEN tried it, and some are looking at it like it's begging for loose change.
Whatever.
I really, really lost interest in WFB 8th.
People are dismissing AoS for being shallow, when to me WFB had become about having either the biggest unit or the biggest monster, and never dropping below 2400. I wasn't enjoying it.
But I've enjoyed the games of AoS I've played so far. I think part of this may be down to the fact that I've kinda forgotten what units are 'supposed' to do in WFB.
We're obviously still in the denial stages right now as far as WFB is concerned, but from what I can glean on here, the ruleset for AoS is a gaming rorshach test- says more about the commenting player than the game itself, or on here, the inverse of the emperor's new clothes; "No, I thought it was the stupidest thing ever before you!"

So frankly, play AoS or don't. Play WFB or don't. Buy GW minis or don't. Give up in wargaming all together or don't. Nobody of any import actually cares.
Do what you enjoy, and what makes you happy.
I'll be playing AoS for the foreseeable.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Tzar Boris
13-07-2015, 00:19
There's something about AOS which has "devalued" my model purchases. It feels like overnight the long hours spent fluffing up my army roster, justifying model purchases, and painting the damn things to make them look spiffy have been in vain, as they just don't feel valuable anymore from a game standpoint. My armies have no future as far as I can tell.

Competitiveness in the game can make a lot of decisions for you, from the simple decision of what model to buy, through to my generally more common decision to paint the "good" units really well and bodge a respectable but quick paint job over the stuff that won't see much time on the table - my suicide squads if you will.

In comparison to previous Warhammer edition changes it's day and night. I've never felt a previous army being hung out to dry - whether fluff, models, rules. You've always been able to incorporate some form of a viable Nth edition army into a new edition - and whilst that may create a need to amend and/or buy a couple of different units to remain competitive (and retain some degree of fun - I find there's not a huge delight to be had in being unable to win, as opposed to tactically being won against when given a fair chance via the rules - I feel that's a distinction that has to be made).

So, yes, AOS feels "different" this time. Over the past 20 years or so, the armies have been getting bigger, rather than smaller. The tactics learned and refined into various "favourite editions" for different gamers. But never has your investment in WFB ever been in vain. You can always get a "pick up" game against anyone, going by the most recent edition, and be sure of a laugh, discussion and maybe some new friends. It's not the latest Multiplayer FPS where it has a six month shelf life. It has investment, from sheer monetary value, years of spare time, imagination, emotions and maybe not a small degree of fanaticism. This time round it feels that the majority of those armies you have invested in have been hit square over the head and dragged and given a doing out by the bins. Certainly from an emotional point of view, the Warhammer World being gone is kinda hard to take - it's not a Star Wars "Different time period" change, it's not LOTR "Oh yeah, there's an elf you may recognise!" - this is out and out destruction of a perfectly viable and lively fantasy land with many tales yet to be told, and, let's be honest, many tales left to finish, let alone starting new ones.

And in that, lies the problem. Even if you find a perfect army build that can go toe to toe with the new Age of Sigmar armies, you'll know, we'll all know, that they just don't belong there. This is not Warhammer, in all but name. Your lovely themed armies, your Lothern Sea Guard, your Dogs of War army, your Norscan Marauder Pirate army, my Nuln Artillery Train, all left wandering this limbo of wargaming, not belonging to AOS, but allowed it's stay of execution, like the fat kid being picked last for football.

The point, I think, is that even if you love the rules for AOS, and can't wait to play more and more games, but you've got a "legacy" army, you'll be needing a new one, even if just for your own narrative peace of mind.

In a way, I'm kinda glad. It means we have a fixed EOL for any specific army. I'm not having to worry about the cost of a new monster I just MUST have. It's over. Time to play catch up and actually finish painting some toy soldiers and maybe even get a full 5,000 pts down and game with NO bare plastic units! Magnificent.

Tzar Boris
13-07-2015, 00:21
As a side,

I have sold a lot more Fantasy armies than I currently own, and usually for far more than cost. So I think overall, I'm up on the whole deal. Cheers GW.

scruffyryan
13-07-2015, 00:30
I don't like games that encourage people not to try their hardest to win. The fun for me in face to face games is two people trying their hardest to win, the implication that this is somehow "wrongfun" annoys the crap out of me.

HelloKitty
13-07-2015, 00:36
I don't think anyone thinks that that is wrong fun. And AoS doesn't encourage people not to try their hardest to win.

Sexiest_hero
13-07-2015, 00:55
All I ask is.

A.The game almost always works with no loop holes of doom
B. I can bring what I want and not have to out power my opponent.

Sometimes a company pulls a TSR or New Coke. I love change. I do not love complete destruction for the sake of change. There is a difference.

scruffyryan
13-07-2015, 00:58
I don't think anyone thinks that that is wrong fun. And AoS doesn't encourage people not to try their hardest to win.

You cant put forth a game with the kind of ridiculous rules loopholes in it that AoS + Old army warscrolls has in it, then defend it with "It's just a game for fun, its casual" every time someone points out these rules loopholes and claim that its a game that encourages people to bring their toughest lists and try their hardest to win. Look at like half the "happy with AoS" player reactions to the skaven/tomb kings battle report.

Tato
13-07-2015, 01:37
On the other hand, it would never have attracted this much hatred if its release didn't cause Warhammer to get cancelled.
Avian hits the nail on the head. WHFB and AoS are two completely different games, like, say WH40K and Space Hulk. Can you imagine what a completely different situation we had been in if GW in search of a younger, more casual fan base, who has no need to gulp down 300 pages of rules, just introduced AoS on top of 8th ed? And given us the rules for free for our current armies, just as they did? "Here you are boys, we just added a new game and to all our fans out there, grab the rules and play a casual game this weekend or another." I can envision us all already, weeping with joy, prancing around with merryment, chuckling and slapping each other backs in that happy moment, adopting AoS as a slightly dumb but lovable child. But no. GW decided to shove the new system down our throats and to do so destroy the world and the setting.

New coke. The comparison fans remind us of is absolutely excused. Except, there will be no "sorry, our bad, we bring the classic Cola back". Unfortunately.

SteveW
13-07-2015, 01:41
Tato, if they had done that id have already bought a sigmarine army. You should have been consulted on this.

plantagenet
13-07-2015, 01:55
Said the same thing in another post. unfortunately they went the other way and have caused huge resentment amongst a large per portion of there most loyal fans

Sothron
13-07-2015, 03:05
There are two reasons why I hate AoS:

It destroyed, literally, the world and IP that I have played and loved since the mid to late 1980's. I can't express how many Warhammer products I and my family and friends own in addition to the tabletop models and army books, paints, etc. I am talking about having role playing games in that IP. Playing the Warhammer Invasion card game. Playing the PC games. Reading all the Black Library novels. Actually writing my own fanfics and stories.

That is how much I love that setting. I am a huge fan of multiple IPs and different game systems but nothing, NOTHING compares to Warhammer for me.

And they killed it. That is unforgivable to me. They could easily have introduced a skirmish level game with simple rules and still kept the setting. The only reason they changed it was GW lost the Chapterhouse lawsuit and now their lawyers are telling them to make all new, all crap races like "Steamhead dumdum" to replace iconic armies like Dwarfs. Hell to the no.

2. I hate AoS because even if judged by a separate game system with no emotional attachment to the old system it flat out sucks. There is no other way to say it. I have played multiple games against my wife and friends, watched other at our LGS and no one had any fun playing it. It was so stupid and broken that within five minutes we had already exposed the system for how bad it was.

SteveW
13-07-2015, 03:17
2. I hate AoS because even if judged by a separate game system with no emotional attachment to the old system it flat out sucks. There is no other way to say it. I have played multiple games against my wife and friends, watched other at our LGS and no one had any fun playing it. It was so stupid and broken that within five minutes we had already exposed the system for how bad it was.

I have a hard time believing this, I run in a huge gaming group and even the most stuck up guys in the group at least had a little fun playing AoS. Hell, all I hear online is how bad it is yet every single person out in the fleshy world seems to think it's fun. It screams of internet drama to me.

ooontrprzes
13-07-2015, 03:45
I will attempt to answer the original question (for myself, mind you, no sweeping statements here):

There's definitely elements of both sides here. People (myself included) will have their basic set-point of reference. I got started many years ago in the specialist games section, and treated WFB as the "side-piece" (contrary to many around here, I've found). Interestingly, I can find parallels to many mechanics in AOS in these bygone games. Warscrolls immediately made me look sideways at my ManoWar ship reference cards and think "here we go again", the figure out your narrative aspect made me blow the dust off my Inq book. The simple statline made me wonder how many sigmarines I would need to get a 3-die block against a black orc...

You see where this is going...

So I don't really find anything about AOS and it's system to be particularly jarring, as many of the "symptoms of GW design" were already present. This is just them going "full blown". I suppose the distressing part to me is how many of these "old friends" came back to visit at once. Each one of these rougue elements has at one point been well-received in its own right (well, people still gripe about the ship cards, but I love my little fleet binder), but it was mostly for the novelty of it all. Each of these games also brought something very significant to the table (no pun intended).

And I wouldn't say it's a fear of change, either. In the last few months I have tried several new systems, across a couple of new scales, and am loving the breath of fresh air. My exceedingly small group needed a shift in paradigm, and I was very hopeful AOS would be it, because at the end of the day I do love the world-that-was and was excited to be part of launching the new one....
...Something fell flat for me, though. The odd thing is, it's actually harder to put my finger on than I even at first realized. I suppose in a way the familiarity I described is working against them. If you want this particular "older" gamer's opinion, the whole thing feels same-but-different in a way I fail to comprehend. It actually feels like they took all the "gimmicks" from all their old systems and piled them on each other until the "singularity of quirk" was achieved.

And yes, the price of models is guffaw-worthy, but that is more of a GW thing than an AOS thing, so I don't even really acknowledge that as more than par for the course. And as far as "clinging to what you know", I put it to you that that could very well be synonymous with "clinging to what you enjoy". As a fan of specialist games, I sympathize with this to the utmost. I know the challenges of establishing a group to play a dead system. It's kinda one of those no easy answers things, anything of substance will either read as placation (nothing's stopping you from playing, just go do it!), or confrontation (it's dead, deal with it, new hotness>old and busted). The single most positive thing I can offer in that regard is the vast player base which existed will take some time to dwindle down to "armageddon clock" levels. That even feels hollow to type, so I expect it to be of little comfort.

I still intend to keep an eye on this new product from GW, and to treat it as exactly that- a new product that will need to prove itself on it's own merits. So far I'm really not impressed, but I see enough scraps there to be intrigued. My interest has really shifted to what some of the new factions look like, rather than the game itself. I just love new stuff, things for my shelf, tiny men to paint. The new sculpts I've already seen, while not aesthetically to my taste, are quite good from a technical standpoint (again, in my opinion, be calm). This means if one of these new lines has a look I do enjoy, I could very well end up owning a lot of them...

...Now, this brings up an interesting scenario, wherein young mr. ooont has been before. In my pursuit of weird and wonderful white-metal warriors I have occasionally find myself accidentally possessed of a legitimate force for a game I had no intention of playing (or in the case of Uncharted Seas, 4 or 5 forces). That's usually the point at which I grab the rules and run a few test games, if for no other reason than to add another game to the library. Something like this is very likely in the case of AOS, considering the high-quality sculpts and the promise of free rules for life (promise? rumor? I honestly can't remember, but free for now, anywhoo).
"but oont," you say, "this has already happened, you have enough skaven to clog hellpit!". False. This was the important aspect of me treating this as it's own product. I have nothing for Age of Sigmar (I actually didn't even buy any end times stuff, so I'm really out here). The legacy rules (or whatever you want to call those warscrolls), while initially infuriating, actually are starting to strike me as a rather well-intentioned (if kinda doofy) gesture and not much more. Maybe a little bit of a test drive opportunity for the new rules, too. This could even be the playtesting people accuse GW of not doing. Gather some ideas for rules and "scroll" them on to some units that don't actually exist anymore, and you get an opportunity for testing and feedback without ever having to expose your new IP to the inevitable missteps. From a certain detached viewpoint there is wisdom there.
I guess the real problem for me (now that I've spent a day and a half working it through out loud) is that, for how different Age of Sigmar tries to be, it never really does anything better. I understand this is highly subjective and impossible to quantify, but in their attempt to please more of the people more of the time, they seemed to simply take their "eleven herbs and spices" and water it down a bit.
And it's not that I hate simple, either. I've spent more on Talisman than some WFB armies would set you back. I love simple. But even simple things need to have a purpose. A hammer needs a nail (that feels punny). By attempting to re-define the market so drastically they have created a product that fills no market gap adequately.

Well, I've rambled long enough that there's really no graceful way to stick the dismount, so, uhhh.....
Nah, dude, you're not an Ahole, many people share your skepticism. Some of them might like it down the road, some might not. It's weird when the thing you've spent 20 years of free time on isn't a thing anymore.

LTERALUS
13-07-2015, 03:58
,,, yet every single person out in the fleshy world seems to think it's fun
Is that based on some kind of survey? Or did you pull that claim out of your nurgling hole?

Sothron
13-07-2015, 05:07
I have a hard time believing this, I run in a huge gaming group and even the most stuck up guys in the group at least had a little fun playing AoS. Hell, all I hear online is how bad it is yet every single person out in the fleshy world seems to think it's fun. It screams of internet drama to me.

Come to my LGS and you'll get the same response I gave. People were completely put off by the AoS rules and summoning is completely broken in it. No one had fun playing it. Not sure how else to put it.

SteveW
13-07-2015, 06:08
Come to my LGS and you'll get the same response I gave. People were completely put off by the AoS rules and summoning is completely broken in it. No one had fun playing it. Not sure how else to put it.
Yeah, everyone that read the rules were probably thinking that. Then you play the game and it's fun.

Or I guess I live in a vacuum.

Leogun_91
13-07-2015, 08:34
I am very disappointed at GW over this release. I tend to be brand loyal and I have previously been so to Games Workshop for a long time, defending many releases of GW to my gaming friends. There is however a limit for everyone. I loved Warhammer 8th edition for the feeling, theme and fluff. Those three parts are now gone and with the game I loved so is my loyalty to Games Workshop. I no longer feel confident in the companies abilities to release products that will excite me and let me play good games. I have tried Age of Sigmar but did not like it, people are of course allowed to like it and I wish them the best of luck with it but this has driven me from Games Workshop. I will probably switch to the games of Avatars of War since they can give me high-quality models in a style I enjoy and the rules seemed good at first glance.
People say that you shouldn't get to angry for a corporate decision since they don't really owe you anything, they just sell a product, but if one argues that then it goes both ways and I do not owe them a second try or an attempt to play the starter box. I no longer feel I can trust to receive high-quality products I can enjoy when I buy from Games Workshop and as a result I will buy far less (perhaps not at all) from them.

Avian
13-07-2015, 08:35
Yeah, everyone that read the rules were probably thinking that. Then you play the game and it's fun.

Or I guess I live in a vacuum.

It should have been obvious, once you've spent a bit of time on the forums, that one person's fun isn't necessarily another person's fun. And it shouldn't be suprising that your gaming group's idea of fun is similar to your idea of fun.

Personally, if I wanted a short and simple set of wargaming rules, I'd check out http://freewargamesrules.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Fantasy, which generally seem to be better quality than AoS while keeping approximately the same length.

MiyamatoMusashi
13-07-2015, 08:50
I believe fewer people would have liked this if it had come from an entirely different publisher.

I actually think it's hilarious that many of the people who like AoS are exactly the same people who, whenever anyone suggested that they try an alternative to Warhammer by a different company, were the same people saying "no, no, I only like THIS, only Warhammer by GW gives me EXACTLY the game experience I am looking for".

GW offer them AoS which is a completely different game experience to Warhammer, and they lap it up. Apparently THIS completely different thing is ALSO exactly the game experience they were looking for. Amazing.


On the other hand, it would never have attracted this much hatred if its release didn't cause Warhammer to get cancelled.

True... everyone would have just ignored it. It doesn't do anything other games don't already do better. It would have simply sunk without trace were it not Warhammer's replacement. As it is, it at least has people's attention... positive or otherwise.

Daniel36
13-07-2015, 09:23
We are planning a game tomorrow, 2 vs 2, and I am actually looking forward to trying out the RULES. So far, the Empire rules actually look good to me. Truth be told, I never quite liked the Warhammer rules.

However, the SETTING is what always drew me to Warhammer, and the current setting is absolutely TERRIBLE!!

I will never, ever like these new Sigmarines. I hate them with a passion. They don't fit at ALL! and while there is a very big chance I may actually enjoy the game, it is the setting that completely ruins it for me. And the sad part is, even though we now have RULES for our old armies, and could potentially play pre-AoS games with them using these rules, everyone knows that they are never going to be updated again, even if it turns out some things need changing, so we are stuck with them. And while I don't care that there won't be any new releases for my old armies, the sad thing is there won't be any old releases any more either. If I want another unit of X, I need to splurge cash on them RIGHT NOW, or hope that someday they will end up on eBay.

So that is why I personally hate this new direction. But, to end on a positive note; Several weeks ago I regretted having bought all the End Times books, but now I am happy. Chances are my gaming group and I are going to stick to 8th.

Shandor
13-07-2015, 09:27
Yeah, everyone that read the rules were probably thinking that. Then you play the game and it's fun.

Or I guess I live in a vacuum.

Well it happend here too. Ive seen alot peoples had fun with AoS when they played a few Games. Now its a different tone when you ask those peoples. They are Bored already and playing other Games again.
I didnt had fun with AoS when i first played it.. but i really can understand it could be fun when you play it first. Its new and different and the Scrolls are a good idea. It just seems that Peoples dont have fun with it for a longer time. Well as far i can see it here. Maybe its a different kind of peoples where you live.

Haravikk
13-07-2015, 13:32
I started playing Fantasy with 6th edition, didn't exactly skip 7th (but was too busy to invest heavily in it) and bought the limited edition 8th rulebook*. I enjoyed these editions, but they all had their own problems. 6th was balanced somewhat well, but never really had the feeling that infantry were truly valuable, meanwhile 7th made that even worse while wildly unbalancing the army books (and leaving many 6th books to decline in power), 8th was a big improvement, made infantry feel powerful again, but ruined magic and a few other things.

So… I'm not sure I have any particular loyalty to any of those three editions; I guess of them all I liked 8th's focus on infantry, and if you play it with less powerful magic and a fair opponent then it works quite well as a game of tactics. The 8th edition army books even had decent balance and interesting rules (even if some armies never got an update, and now never will).


With Age of Sigmar… I kind of both like and dislike that it's easier to play skirmish games, as while I always felt that Warhammer needed a smaller entry point for new players or fast games, it was the big armies that appealed to me (meanwhile skirmishing in 40k was what appealed to me, but good luck telling GW that at this point). There's less focus on blocks of infantry since everything can just move as a shapeless mass, and there's less of the traditional outflanking, hammer and anvil type tactics. But at the same time it's streamlined, has some great rules on its wealth of free war scrolls, and has a more compelling new setting. Not that I disliked the old "our medieval world but with fantasy stuff", but the new setting has the potential to be more interesting overall, assume GW finds some people that can actually name things in a way that doesn't make me cringe.


I guess really it's just different; it's been a while since I played any big games of 8th edition, so being able to throw together a small war band and play a skirmish is very interesting to me, and if I can be bothered getting my realm of battle board out I might try a big game again at some point (I'll probably still use my movement trays though, I'm not moving hundreds of models around without them!). I don't think it's strictly worse, and while I'm optimistic there are definitely areas where it's not immediately better either.

But I do think that it's still premature to gripe about it as much as people are; it's the same with every edition (the whining about 8th was huge, and there are people still whining about Steadfast, in spite of it being the rule that makes that edition good). By all means complain about the £45 price for a book which only adds a few scenarios; of course I'd prefer to see £10-15 scenario books with light background, plus separate large background books, but since when was it surprising that GW created incredibly expensive books with limited appeal?


*As an aside; I hate the new limited edition books. Since when was a cardboard sleeve worth paying so much extra for a limited run? The 8th edition limited rulebook isn't going to gain in value either, but at least it feels more like the extra cash gets you something (leatherette binding, embossed cover, brass warhammer emblem and clasp, bookmark ribbons and an aged effect). In my opinion rulebooks should come with a cardboard sleeve as standard to contain separate soft-cover books for background, rules and collecting (model photos, painting guides etc.) plus a separate reference. Limited editions should be crazy extras like a metal case, or a lectern, maybe a chain harness so you can wear it on your back like you're a priest of Sigmar or something? Something that's just plain cool, and that might be worth having even once the book itself is out of date.

HelloKitty
13-07-2015, 13:40
This is what I'm seeing now a week into it in regards to the people here that are having fun with it but are cautious *where I am at*

1) the limited edition book - no one really knows what it is so they are staying away from it. We bought one for the winner of our end times campaign

2) the very vocally loud negative people in the community are actively trying to get people to not touch it, not just by talking about how crappy the game is but also name-calling the individuals that are promoting it or who are having fun with it. This is having the desired effect because most people I know don't feel like being called out in public by a loud guy calling them names.

3) the people having fun with it are mostly torn between it and 8th because we all still want our block game back

4) with such a divided community right now, the people having fun with it are leery that the game will be dead and don't want to put any emotional energy into a system that half of the community is actively and vocally trying to tear down

Unfortunately most h ave looked at the new mantic rules now and there are only a couple of guys that want to try it. This does very much remind me of the 4th edition D&D launch.

Griefbringer
13-07-2015, 13:40
I guess the question of all this, is the AoS new system in much the same way as 4th ed completely changing warhammer a pattern, of we all just like what we started/came into a game with or do you feel that many peoples dislike for the new system based on actual balanced assessment of the game?


I am not really going to discuss about the WHFB to AoS change, but maybe I could comment a bit about the 3rd edition to 4th edition changes, since I own both editions.

Conceptually, both editions were similar: big blocks of troops fighting it out, with war machines, characters, monsters and units of skirmishers also present. However, where the editions differed was that 4th edition simplified and streamlined things a lot. While the core rules remained the same, 3rd edition had a lot more detail, which many players may have missed. Reading through the 3rd edition books, I at least appreciate a lot of those finer aspects that helped to differentiate between different types of units or equipment. For example weapons had quite a variety of modifiers they provided in 3rd edition, while in 4th edition they mainly provided a strenght modifier. There were also more detailed rules for manoeuvring, and for forming special formations like wedges, squares or shieldwalls to obtain tactical benefits. So people who appreciated detail and more tactical options must have missed those aspects of 3rd edition.

Streamlining the game also made it faster. In 3rd edition, close combats could result in quite some slugging matches (at least with large units), and fleeing enemies were actually quite difficult to wipe out. 4th edition made it easier to break enemy in close combat and to destroy them in pursuit, though it may have taken things quite far in the other direction.

To be honest, there were some things in the 3rd edition that were pretty broken, and where 4th edition brought improvements. For example in 3rd edition cannons were effectively auto-hitting death rays, while in 4th edition they had a definitive possibility to miss their target (not that I really like range guessing as a rules mechanism, when other shooting uses crew BS...). There were also a lot of creatures which were immune to non-magical attacks (like elementals, demons and ethereal undead), which could be a pain for the opponent since magical attacks were not particularly common - in later editions such properties became rarer.

Magic systems in the two editions were very different. 3rd edition had a pretty mechanical and predictable magic system, where the wizards started with a given amount of magic points. Casting a spell would cost a fixed number of magic points and would succeed automatically, with opponent usually not having opportunity to dispel it. Level of the spell caster affected how powerful spells he could cast, with the 1st level spells being pretty limited in effect (and sometimes quite subtle), while some of the 4th level spells were pretty broken (I think there was one spell that would cause an automatic hit on every single living model on the tabletop). Spell generation was random, though. 4th edition went very different way, with the introduction of winds of magic rules and dispels, though this version required a boatload of cards (didn't help that magic items were also for some reason moved to a card-system, even though there was nothing random in their purchase process).

As for the actual products, 3rd edition was very straightforward. There was the big rulebook (sold on its own), which contained all the rules, and a separate Warhammer Armies book that contained army lists for pretty much all of the factions present. Besides these, there was Warhammer Siege supplement (for assaulting fortresses), Realms of Chaos books (Slaves to Darkness, Lost and Damned), and a few WD articles with rules for some new unit type.

4th edition changed things by introducing starter box set, with rulebook not available separately. Inside the starter box was a pile of plastic miniatures, rulebook, bestiary book, and a little booklet with army lists (also called Warhammer Armies). However, magic rules proper were not part of the set, so getting those would require buying a separate boxed set which came with a new rulebook and a boatload of cards to go with it. However, soon afterwards the individual army books, with more detailed army list and background material for a single faction, were introduced.

In a summary, I would say that 4th edition streamlined the game a lot, and probably made it more easily accessible to new gamers (rules-wise), but it did so at the expense of removing a lot of finer detail and options (at least some which could have been easily kept). However, the core concept of the game still remained one of massed battles - though something in the design eventually led to this (and 5th edition) known as Herohammer, since individual characters and wizards could be quite dominant in the game.

sixfthoneybadger
13-07-2015, 14:29
I'm an older gamer and I have seen plenty of changes in different games. Some I roll with others I have nothing to do with. What AoS has accomplished is fracturing a gaming community. I refuse to play AoS because its just terrible in my opinion. I have friends who have decided to play it because their LGS is pushing it. I have started playing KoW so I can use my models and also keep playing a mass fantasy battle game. I bought the Dwarf starter army box from Mantic and its not all bad... cheap, but a ton of flashing to cut off.

So we have at last count 6 playing AoS and 16 playing KoW. We also had one rage quit. That's just my local group. Surrounding groups that support tournaments like us are experencing the same thing. So roughly a 1/3 of the guys I have gotten to be friends with over the course of 15 years are gone.... poof!!! Yes I know I could still reach out to them, but gaming is what we shared. We all have family and other friends we spend time with so its a loss. So in my book of grudges GW went to the top. They split a community.

Sothron
13-07-2015, 16:44
Yeah, everyone that read the rules were probably thinking that. Then you play the game and it's fun.

Or I guess I live in a vacuum.

Or, you know, your experience in life is different from mine? Or the people at my LGS? Gasp! Shock!

Not sure if you are trying to troll here but your experiences are your own. Mine are my own. I have played several games in AoS, my LGS group played several games, no one had fun or enjoyed it. The end.

SteveW
13-07-2015, 16:50
Or, you know, your experience in life is different from mine? Or the people at my LGS? Gasp! Shock!

Not sure if you are trying to troll here but your experiences are your own. Mine are my own. I have played several games in AoS, my LGS group played several games, no one had fun or enjoyed it. The end.


Not trying to offend and don't appreciate being called a troll but when people can't give any more detail than "played it, hated it" it screams of not actually having played it.

Maybe you don't have the ability to articulate what you didn't like but to me it sounds like standard internet rage.

GrandmasterWang
13-07-2015, 16:55
I am very disappointed at GW over this release. I tend to be brand loyal and I have previously been so to Games Workshop for a long time, defending many releases of GW to my gaming friends. There is however a limit for everyone. I loved Warhammer 8th edition for the feeling, theme and fluff. Those three parts are now gone and with the game I loved so is my loyalty to Games Workshop. I no longer feel confident in the companies abilities to release products that will excite me and let me play good games. I have tried Age of Sigmar but did not like it, people are of course allowed to like it and I wish them the best of luck with it but this has driven me from Games Workshop. I will probably switch to the games of Avatars of War since they can give me high-quality models in a style I enjoy and the rules seemed good at first glance.
People say that you shouldn't get to angry for a corporate decision since they don't really owe you anything, they just sell a product, but if one argues that then it goes both ways and I do not owe them a second try or an attempt to play the starter box. I no longer feel I can trust to receive high-quality products I can enjoy when I buy from Games Workshop and as a result I will buy far less (perhaps not at all) from them.

I overall am rather positive about AOS but I really liked your post.

I feel your pain mate... I really do.

For me the feeling, theme and fluff of 8th Edition is still there (in 8th/Chillhammer not AOS). Also for me 8th is still played in GW and the ebooks are still sold. For me 8th IS Warhammer Fantasy Battles. I always loved the models and the background but 8th finally managed to capture the feel of a Fantasy Battle Game.

I still have my 8th and it's my game of choice. I see AOS an an interesting new game and setting I can sink my teeth into.

GW losing your loyalty and the loyalty of those like you is a real blow to them.

Imo yours has so far been the 'best' "Anti AOS" post I have seen.

Do you not still have a group/place you can play 8th with?

Hoffa
13-07-2015, 17:09
I to was there for the 3:d to 4:th shift. That was a simplification of the game that at first was hard to swallow. Problem with 3:d was that it was not unusual for a 3000p game to last an entire day which I must admit was a little much. Also parts of it was broken, no other edition has come close to the insanity of lv 4 wizards in 3:d. We used a lv 4 once and then banned them. (To put it into perspective, purple sun would have been an average lv 3 spell back then and there was no such thing as dispelling) Same goes for the power of warmachine. a 3:ed 10 man stonethrower was insane.

4:th had a lot of problems but suddenly it was possible to play a standard game in 2-3 hours which was a huge improvement. But even though the rules was greatly changed and simplified and the fluff greatly evolved (Most of what we think of as the warhammer fluff is from the 4:th edition armybooks) It still felt like warhammer.

Sothron
13-07-2015, 17:19
Not trying to offend and don't appreciate being called a troll but when people can't give any more detail than "played it, hated it" it screams of not actually having played it.

Maybe you don't have the ability to articulate what you didn't like but to me it sounds like standard internet rage.

I didn't call you a troll, I said I was not sure if you were trolling or not. A rather distinct difference that must be pointed out. I discussed playing AoS before in another thread. The summoning rules are completely broken. The complete lack of tactics, flanking, strategy make it simplistic child's play. The shooting rules are laughable. There is absolutely zero balance in the game.

Is this descriptive enough for you?

SteveW
13-07-2015, 17:22
Is this descriptive enough for you?


Yes it is, thank you.

Red Skullz
13-07-2015, 18:09
Me and my group are very excited by AoS and are playing it now just to get a feel for things.

Personally AoS is finally making fantasy exciting again. I played fantasy from 93-05 but got bored of it and even if I have two finished armies I haven't even played 10 games with them in total since 7th I think. Go figure why.

Though this has apparently divided the community, the fantasy community hasn't been the largest since I don't know when and there's good reasons for that as well imo.

While I'll wait for the new greenskins (can't remember the new names ;) ) I'll build a small skaven warband. Something I've wanted to do for ages but haven't due to the ridiculous amount of miniatures needed previously.

But in the end. People need to focus on enjoying their hobby and if one game doesn't suit you there's bound to be one that does. Peace :)

Lars Porsenna
13-07-2015, 18:30
The game might be mildly fun, but at the end of the day, I have to maximize my gaming time with the most satisfaction, because my time is not always my own (family, job, etc). So the question is: why play AoS compared to any other skirmish fantasy game on the market? Why play AoS when I can spend my time playing Reaper Warlord FREX? Also no matter how great the rules might be, if I want to play a mass battle fantasy game, AoS isn't. So the only real reason why I would want to play AoS is because of the emotional attachment I might have with my old armies. And if GW is going to phase those old armies out, what other reason do I have to play AoS?

Damon.

Griefbringer
13-07-2015, 21:59
I to was there for the 3:d to 4:th shift. That was a simplification of the game that at first was hard to swallow. Problem with 3:d was that it was not unusual for a 3000p game to last an entire day which I must admit was a little much. Also parts of it was broken, no other edition has come close to the insanity of lv 4 wizards in 3:d. We used a lv 4 once and then banned them. (To put it into perspective, purple sun would have been an average lv 3 spell back then and there was no such thing as dispelling) Same goes for the power of warmachine. a 3:ed 10 man stonethrower was insane.


Some of the war machines had their issues, though a stone thrower at least had a decent chance of missing the intended target. And those 10 man crew versions were probably intended for sieges or special scenarios, not for ordinary games. The war machines appearing in the army lists seem to be 3 or 4 man variants, though orcs also had 6 man variant in their list.

As for magic, 4th edition had some quite powerful spells, though at least it did not suffer the worst excesses of the 3rd edition spells. But somehow reading the lores in the 8th edition rulebook really reminds me of many spells in the 4th edition magic supplement, both by the name and the power. Purple Sun of Xereus actually made its debute in the 4th edition.

Other strangeness from the 3rd edition included the chariot damage system, which involved rolling on a somewhat bizarre table to see what happened. 4th edition cleaned things up a bit, but still involved separately keeping track of the damage suffered by the crew, the chariot and the draught animals. It was only 6th edition that really streamlined things by introducing a combined profile for damaging chariots.

One aspect in the 3rd to 4th transition that may have led to the Herohammer phenomena may have been that the army list point restrictions for different elements tended to change, with the minimum amount of rank and file required going down and maximum amount allowed for characters going up. Not to mention that 4th edition was when GW decided that the game needs named special characters (though the first ones in the army books were probably not all that scary....).

tiger g
13-07-2015, 22:17
I am loving the new fluff and how to use my old empire mercenary army in the new world. Skaven and Lizardmen also are nicely carried over from the last world and now get to start on a Chaos army. Making our own scenarios (or stealing from the 50 or so rule books I have) and it is making a lot of sense and fun. Have not seen fantasy played in the store for 2 years and everyone is complaining. (but they were not playing the game anyway). Will lose some old players and pick up some new ones. After two more book releases we will see where this is game is going.

Galain
13-07-2015, 22:31
People hate change for one.

When D&D 3rd edition hit the world in 2000 there was a lot of angst and venom towards its creators. The AD&D crowd vowed to never spend a dime on this blatant money grab that was unnecessary.

When D&D 4th ed hit - same thing.

It's a bit disingenuous to imply those reactions were anywhere near the same scale. The horrific things that WotC did to DnD with 4th edition not only toppled the brand from the top of the heap, the top spot was claimed by the upstart publisher whose game utilized the exact rules WotC carelessly tossed away. To the point where 5th edition DnD was essentially a huge love letter to 3rd edition/Pathfinder fans saying "Come back! We miss you and all your money!"

Meanwhile, the transition from 2nd/ADnD to 3rd marked the start of close to a decade-long edition that is THE definitive system for an entire generation of gamers.

Most people don't like change, but how much they hate it depends on the status quo as well as what you're changing TO. Most people will agree that the 8th edition status quo needed tweaking, just as most people would agree that 3.5 needed tweaking. However, setting fire to the setting and complete revamping everything was NOT the answer people were hoping for, in either case. The only question is if GW has the humility to own up to their mistakes like WotC eventually did.

williamsond
13-07-2015, 22:48
I've played every edition since 3rd and while I didn't like the last two editions that much (strangely 4th was my favourite), AoS in my eyes was a chance to bring fantasy battle back to a tactical game with smaller units maneuvering around the board, magic users taking a step back being toned down and introducing some real tactical play with smaller armies... what they have done is a travesty for me and has nothing in common with the game I loved for the best part of 30 years, I'm just glad I moved to oldhammer a couple of years ago.

jet_palero
13-07-2015, 23:52
I'm going to open this post with a short story to phrase it in way i hope makes me use of the phrase 'older gamers' a lil less likely to get me shot.

I first started playing warhammer as my father did, there were always a few models laying around the house half painted, or a dice under the couch etc. however i still remember my dad taking me in store letting me run riot to choose my models, and both he and the at the time manager saying you'll never understand how great warhammer was before this new 4th edition stuff came along.' truth is i never once played anything before 4th, yet after todays trip in store to at least give this AoS a go i finaly understood what they were saying.

I guess the question of all this, is the AoS new system in much the same way as 4th ed completely changing warhammer a pattern, of we all just like what we started/came into a game with or do you feel that many peoples dislike for the new system based on actual balanced assessment of the game?

For the record I've now played the AoS and rather felt I'd gone from playing 3 tier chess to playing Snap. when i was then told the cost of 20 models i also laughed thinking the redshirt was laughing....was awkward when i realized he wasn't. so am i being an Ahole and just clinging to what i know or is this just a usual thing other more experienced gamers of earlier Warhammer saw and eventualy came to enjoy and play the new system?

I've got an original copy of the 1st edition Warhammer hard back. In my opinion it is closer to 8th edition than 8th edition is to AoS. 3rd to 4th wasn't a change I went through, but it could not have been as drastic as this. In my opinion, humble as it is, GW is only able to survive the way they do because they spent so many years training their customers to look down on products from other companies.

itcamefromthedeep
14-07-2015, 00:48
I believe fewer people would have liked this if it had come from an entirely different publisher.You mean kinda like Confrontation by Rakham?


If this is what the really positive guys do, I think it's fair to say that this ruleset is worse than 8th edition (whether 8th was better than 7th is still up for debate).I think the whole idea was that only players capable of getting house rules going are worthy to play Age of Sigmar. If you can't agree on something that lets you get entertaining games out of the system with the people around you, then I think Games Workshop doesn't want your business. I think the kind of player you describe is exactly the kind of player GW wants.

Think of these rules as a sportsmanship test. If you can't get them working, then you're not a good enough sport to participate and GW wants you out of the player base so you can stop infecting the others with this "competitiveness" quality you have.

Kingrick
14-07-2015, 00:54
You mean kinda like Confrontation by Rakham?

I think the whole idea was that only players capable of getting house rules going are worthy to play Age of Sigmar. If you can't agree on something that lets you get entertaining games out of the system with the people around you, then I think Games Workshop doesn't want your business. I think the kind of player you describe is exactly the kind of player GW wants.

Think of these rules as a sportsmanship test. If you can't get them working, then you're not a good enough sport to participate and GW wants you out of the player base so you can stop infecting the others with this "competitiveness" quality you have.

I have my doubts on that. GW wants your money. I don't think they care about the rest.

ColShaw
14-07-2015, 01:09
Think of these rules as a sportsmanship test. If you can't get them working, then you're not a good enough sport to participate and GW wants you out of the player base so you can stop infecting the others with this "competitiveness" quality you have.

If GW really think that, they're more foolish than I thought they were... which is saying something.

Alienating a large portion of your market because "they're playing our games wrong" is flat-out insane.

frankelee
14-07-2015, 03:17
I think the whole idea was that only players capable of getting house rules going are worthy to play Age of Sigmar. If you can't agree on something that lets you get entertaining games out of the system with the people around you, then I think Games Workshop doesn't want your business. I think the kind of player you describe is exactly the kind of player GW wants.

Think of these rules as a sportsmanship test. If you can't get them working, then you're not a good enough sport to participate and GW wants you out of the player base so you can stop infecting the others with this "competitiveness" quality you have.

That or you crap money uncontrollably in their stores. You've got to be the kind of person who is so undiscerning that you accept getting a half-baked product that's pretty poorly done even for half-baked products and love it, or you must have large denomination bills falling out of your butt while visiting a Games Workshop retail location so that the single man who works there can follow you around collecting it.

Red Skullz
14-07-2015, 08:03
Why all of the belittling of those liking AoS? Some like it, some don't. Let's move on because every AoS thread is filled with the same and its frankly getting boring not being able to stay on topic.

roperpg
14-07-2015, 08:24
The only players in my local group who aren't convinced by AoS are the ones who basically do nothing but practice for tournaments, and I can completely understand their misgivings - the core mechanic they based their entire gaming experience on is gone.
That said, they are still playing it and are starting to enjoy it.
I've not yet encountered anyone who thinks AoS is as terrible as it's being made out, and we're starting to get a feel for judging armies 'by eye'.

(Yes, I'm fully aware the rules don't expect you to do that, but they do say you can finish deployment whenever you like.)

The only house rule we are using thus far is measuring bases instead of models and allowing a margin of error for squares, simply because it's easier for us.

What we are all in agreement with though is that the Old WFB rock-paper-scissors hierarchy for each unit is out of whack - and led to some quite entertaining mismatches during games while people figured out the 'new' best and worst opponents for each unit type, and certain things to bear in mind from last edition are no longer the case, e.g. in WFB, the hell cannon was horrible no matter what you tried. AoS, it's utterly horrific at range but a relative pussy cat in melee.


Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

T10
14-07-2015, 08:30
It destroyed, literally, the world and IP that I have played and loved since the mid to late 1980's.

I agree, though in my case the "my" Warhammer world as represented by WFB died with the Ogre Kingdoms. The big "super models" of later years was each another nail in the coffin. I'm not saying that that these things made WFB a worse game, but it killed the connection with the RPG, and the latter was what got me hooked in the first place.

Age of Sigmar is just getting started, and I'm curious to see what direction they are taking to build and develop the new background. It is after all the setting and the fluff that drives the aesthetics. I don't see myself absorbing the new background/fluff to the same degree I enjoyed WFRP/WFB through the 80's and 90s, but if GW manages to make minis I want to buy because I like the look? Who am I to hold on to my money?

-T10

Avian
14-07-2015, 08:56
Think of these rules as a sportsmanship test.
What about the $40 for the little measuring thingy? What might *that* be a test of?
;)

roperpg
14-07-2015, 09:04
What about the $40 for the little measuring thingy? What might *that* be a test of?
;)
Hey, it works for Apple & Beats... [emoji16]

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Kaptajn_Congoboy
14-07-2015, 09:08
What about the $40 for the little measuring thingy? What might *that* be a test of?
;)

Googling:
http://warsen.al/products/3x5x2-multi-tool

Or if you absolutely want one in metal to chip the paint: http://sewing.about.com/od/beginner1/ig/Sewing-Tools/Sewing-Gauges.htm

The_Real_Chris
14-07-2015, 17:49
I guess the question of all this, is the AoS new system in much the same way as 4th ed completely changing warhammer a pattern, of we all just like what we started/came into a game with or do you feel that many peoples dislike for the new system based on actual balanced assessment of the game?

For the record I've now played the AoS and rather felt I'd gone from playing 3 tier chess to playing Snap. when i was then told the cost of 20 models i also laughed thinking the redshirt was laughing....was awkward when i realized he wasn't. so am i being an Ahole and just clinging to what i know or is this just a usual thing other more experienced gamers of earlier Warhammer saw and eventualy came to enjoy and play the new system?

No. But remember you have gotten older... In general older gamers like different aspects of wargaming. As a crass generalisation younger players like things like listbuilding more than older wargamers, who tend to favour things like tactical movement. Games that are successful at different demographics have different characterisations. Some games like older versions of warhammer can grow with the player where the list becomes less important and how you play, what scenarios you design and use, the tactical depth, become more important. Others are fun when you are young but less so as you mature.

GW has gotten better at delivering what their target demographic want for the level of effort expended. The design studio is a ghost of its former self, but that is fine as the same level of effort isn't expended on what they produce and it does the job to their satisfaction.

And then of course you have the rose tinted glasses. You learnt it back then so it semed easy and fun to you, now its a doddle to learn and far easier to play which would devalue it. You might have forgot many poor parts of the rules that you would have coped/deleted/changed when you were younger.

Very few GW games have stood the test of time in terms of rules. The two notables I think are Bloodbowl that has a massive tourney circuit, putting the other GW games to shame (I think the world cup has a 1000 players attending?) and Epic. Bloodbowl had a number of rules revisions led by players endorsed by GW which made it the game it is today. Epic was a well designed system that got a comprehensive GW FAQ and was designed to have fan lists easily bolted on, that has led to the development of lots of other armies. Bar these new lists you can go to a tourney ever month for Epic and you are still playing with the GW printed rulebook. Epic of course was developed with extensive fan interaction and testing. (Warmaster comes close but only really found its stride with Warmaster Ancients - the support process stopped before those changes could improve the official GW game.)

But GW believes rules don't matter because declining balance and utility hasn't noticeably affected sales in their view.

morvaeldd
14-07-2015, 23:03
Played WFB since 4th, like OP. I think I like 60% of AoS base rules, and the rest needs fleshing out and expanding a bit (maybe to ~6 pages). Some army specific rules are obviously broken, but even GW admitted it (that those rules are funny farewell to old armies and a stop gap solution before new armies launch). Points should be back too. But what is unacceptable is destroying old fluff and armies. End of story. RIP Warhammer that I have known for the last 20 years. Now waiting for the PC game to bring back old magic, that GW lost with AoS.

CrystalSphere
14-07-2015, 23:41
I was introduced in late 5th but started playing in 6th, overall my main problem with AoS is that it destroyed the setting and support from the game, effectively discontinuing WHFB.

For that reason alone i think most established players are already angry at GW, but if that wasn´t enough, the replacement for WHFB is a copycat skirmish game with no depth and just way too casual for people interested in wargaming - who want it to be a tactical challenge, not just throw dices around toy soldiers.

The new AoS setting is also quite bad IMO, it´s full of hamfisted references to the old world while everything gets renamed to something unique enough so that they can trademark it, no matter how dumb it sounds. It´s obvious that the aim of this new setting was to rebrand everything GW, and so far i have found not a single piece of background that is remotely engaging.

Typo
15-07-2015, 07:07
Why all of the belittling of those liking AoS? Some like it, some don't. Let's move on because every AoS thread is filled with the same and its frankly getting boring not being able to stay on topic.
Probably the same reason that people who dislike it are being described as WAACy and/or uber-competitive. I don't know what that reason is, but its not like the abuse is travelling solely in one direction...

Luciano
15-07-2015, 15:07
The game might be mildly fun, but at the end of the day, I have to maximize my gaming time with the most satisfaction, because my time is not always my own (family, job, etc). So the question is: why play AoS compared to any other skirmish fantasy game on the market? Why play AoS when I can spend my time playing Reaper Warlord FREX? Also no matter how great the rules might be, if I want to play a mass battle fantasy game, AoS isn't. So the only real reason why I would want to play AoS is because of the emotional attachment I might have with my old armies. And if GW is going to phase those old armies out, what other reason do I have to play AoS?

Damon.

This ^
The truth is I don’t dislike AoS but I simply don’t need it.
I don’t have interest in the background, there are plenty of fantasy skirmish rules around (many of them better than anything offered by GW) and for quick and fun games I’m satisfied with my rules of choice (the “Song of…” series).

I started playing historical wargames in the ’70 and I was a client of Citadel even before WHFB was born (the last historical miniatures I bought from them were 24 Fatimid archers and 12 Byzantine Kataphraktoi, good times).
I found Warhammer 1st because I was searching for some fantasy massed combat rules, in the following years I bought Warhammer 3rd, 4th, 5th 6th and 8th (with great but misplaced hopes), Rogue trader, WH40K 2nd, Space Marines, Mighty Empires, Warmaster, Manowar, Nercomunda and Battlefleet (I also have Reaper, Warhammer’s dad).
You could say I was a real fan of GW's products.

These rules were never perfect but the Warhammer world had an amazing development, from a very generic and vague fantasy setting to the complex world it was until few weeks ago.

The only result of the death of WHFB is to push me to try other scales (15mm or even 6mm) and rules or (if I have time, ability and willpower enough) to modify WHFB 3rd rules and army lists for my personal use. After all the third edition is the one I played more and even if it needed to change in my own opinion the 4th oversimplified too much stuff.

Luciano


PS: I'm happy to see I'm not the only one noticing Total Warhammer will come out after the death of the Warhammer world.

Herzlos
15-07-2015, 16:16
There's quite a lot of 10ish mm fantasy stuff out there if you want to go down the massive horde route.

Luciano
15-07-2015, 19:05
There's quite a lot of 10ish mm fantasy stuff out there if you want to go down the massive horde route.

I'm very tempted, there are a lot of nice miniatures in the smaller scale, with 15mm it's even possible to play Warhammer and I already based some miniatures for it (base size 15x15mm for infantry, 15x30mm for cavalry, etc,).
Only a few of course, more or less 100 skeletons, a skeleton dragon and a zombie one, 30 cavalrymen (cavalryskeletons?) and a dozen of heroes.
They look good, the cost is not all that much and the dragons are really "dragony", I use 25mm dragons and with 15mm miniatures they look the right size (to me at least).

I could also use Warmaster with 10mm miniatures (a lot of producers with a great choice) or the fantasy version of Ancient/Medieval rules like Hail Caesar or Impetus and filling the bases with 6mm.

Thanks GW, you have freed me and now I have a lot of choices and opportunities (but I'm still waiting for a substitute of Man O'War, Uncharted Sea is not my cup of tea).
Luciano

Kyriakin
15-07-2015, 20:16
There's quite a lot of 10ish mm fantasy stuff out there if you want to go down the massive horde route.
This is the direction i am going.

Ebay prices for GW depend on the army (e.g. HE cheap, DE expensive as all hell) but there are 10mm from other companies to cover most WM armies and even some unofficial lists like WE, CD and BM.

Maybe WM will have a renaissance, as its the antithesis of most AoS complaints.

daveNYC
15-07-2015, 22:33
PS: I'm happy to see I'm not the only one noticing Total Warhammer will come out after the death of the Warhammer world.

If Sega didn't know about AoS before they hashed out the deal for Total War: Warhammer, then GW just burned a lot of bridges with this move.

Luciano
15-07-2015, 23:34
If Sega didn't know about AoS before they hashed out the deal for Total War: Warhammer, then GW just burned a lot of bridges with this move.

If someone tries to pass from Total Warhammer to AoS he's going to have a bad surprise: not the same kind of game, not the same troops and not even the same world!
I don't know how many Dawn of War players started WH40K but for sure GW is saying bye bye to any potential new customer coming from the video game.

Not the most cunning decision I have ever seen.

Luciano

mrknify
16-07-2015, 02:46
I've never been keen on 100$ for rules. Now they are free, I happen to have a bunch of models and no up to date codex. So I'm fine trying it out.

I love all the specialist games. Blood bowl, mordhiem, necromunda, gorkamorka. I have loads of models. I prefer playing sub 1000 points of 40k only as I too value my free time.

Currently I'm painting another skirmish game. At max points I will only be out 150$.

Still, aos looks good.

Ayin
16-07-2015, 02:58
If someone tries to pass from Total Warhammer to AoS he's going to have a bad surprise: not the same kind of game, not the same troops and not even the same world!
I don't know how many Dawn of War players started WH40K but for sure GW is saying bye bye to any potential new customer coming from the video game.


According to the statements from GW in the financial thread, they feel that they are positioned as a company to where there ARE no new customers to be found, or at least new customers won't replace current customers at an increase, and that they are only selling to their base. That being the case, it would be reasonable to assume they don't care about customer entry from media sources.

Insane, I know. But...I don't know.

pointyteeth
16-07-2015, 03:26
to answer the original post; I started Warhammer in 3rd edition way back when I was 14 or 15. It was great! 4th was definately a change but was ok, same with 5th and 6th. 7th was a horrible edition as I didn't play a power army nor did I play the optimised list for my army so I spent 4 years losing every battle I played. 8th came along and after much humming and hawing and many games turned out to be the greatest edition of warhammer in my opinion. Thinking back over previous editions, none really jumps out as particularly special. 5th was when I really got my groove on and started playing with the same guys that I play warhammer with to this day. 3rd will always have a special place in nostalgialand as its the edition I started with and I still love the art and aesthetic, but I don't consider it the "best" that warhammer was.

I haven't played any games of AoS yet, so I can't make any solid judgements on it as a game. I can state though that it is not the warhammer I was hoping for. I love warhammer for the ranked units and armies that looked like armies (though yes, you can still do low model count armies). I also love warhammer that works for tournament play. Over the course of 8th the community has grown and many new acquaintances made, yet only two weeks since the release of AoS everyone has essentially bailed. The community has splintered into Warmahordes, 40k, Malifeaux, Kings of War and other games. Some have played and like AoS, others hate it with a passion bordering on mental illness. Hopefully I get a chance to play soon and that someone, if not GW, comes up with some system of errata & comp scoring that makes AoS playable in a tournament setting. and hopefully at least some of the community comes back. Fingers crossed.

pointyteeth
16-07-2015, 03:28
According to the statements from GW in the financial thread, they feel that they are positioned as a company to where there ARE no new customers to be found, or at least new customers won't replace current customers at an increase, and that they are only selling to their base. That being the case, it would be reasonable to assume they don't care about customer entry from media sources.

Insane, I know. But...I don't know.

Maybe Total Warhammer ends the same way as the end times? ;)

Ayin
16-07-2015, 03:36
Over the course of 8th the community has grown and many new acquaintances made, yet only two weeks since the release of AoS everyone has essentially bailed. The community has splintered into Warmahordes, 40k, Malifeaux, Kings of War and other games.

This is the most brutal part for me. The community of Warhammer Fantasy grew so much in 8th after 7th, with ever greater media involvement in nearly every form, especially through Podcasts and Youtube channels allowing community interaction and far greater coverage of not just the game itself, but the community activity within the game (coverage of tournaments, challenge games between clubs, ect.)

Unfortunately NONE of that community actually matters to GW's plans, as none of that community generates profit (players buy models, not communities) and GW effected their complete pull-out of other media sources and community involvement years ago. The end result being that now players who were part of the community, whether active participants in creating material or passive fans, get to watch the whole thing come apart, as large sections of it move on to other games (or usually other games they were already playing and simply dropping GW's) or close up shop.

Feefait
16-07-2015, 07:05
While people hate change, this is more than just change. GW replaced a beloved game system with some sort of cooperative theater with miniatures that can only very generously be considered a game, if one has no concern with the competitive aspect of playing a game. I think that the game is easy to assess. Most people have reasons to like it or dislike it. I think that there are many who are holding on due to brand loyalty, and it will be interesting to see which way that domino falls because I think that the whole system is sort of teetering. My guess is that it could be a system that sells as much, or nearly as much as before; or it could be "new Coke".

Yea this is more than adding a horde rule, rewriting magic or removing a couple units. The whole basis of massed battles - even the stat lines are all gone. Everything other than the names of some units and some armies is pretty much wiped out. Even if Wizards did something radically different with 4e there was still the DnD tropes of the same stats, basic idea of armor class, hit points etc. Even though many claim 4e was not DnD the skeleton was still there. That doesn't exist with AoS, which may be a great game but is not WHFB.

Kisanis
17-07-2015, 16:03
What I dont get, is that they felt "fantasy needs space marines" an army of superhuman armoured soldiers.

Why the hell didnt they just re-write brettonia to be that? Heavy armoured infantry and calvarly, pinncales of mankind supported by labouring peasentry. It pretty much is the imperium.

Redo a warhammer skirmish rule book, and make the 8th style of play the equal of apocolypse.

Problem solved. Make the end times the default setting (11:59pm) where the planet is literally on the cusp of destruction and thats why literal global war is happening.

End times was the perfect shake up. Bubble planets in the warp? Not so much.


On the topic of fav fantasy edition?

I loved 6th and 8th, but I feel like 6th gave me a better experience overall, it felt like an all comers edition. Magic had its boring moments (scroll caddies) but overall I felt the game played fantastically.




Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk