PDA

View Full Version : So...Just came back, been away since AoS reveal...how is it?



adurell
30-09-2015, 19:06
I've quit Warhammer some time ago, but tracked the beggining of AoS reveal. I recount, mostly, how angry people were at the direction Warhammer was heading with it. Now that some time already passes and AoS even had some own releases, what is the general consensus/people's opinion on whether it hurt or helped warhammer? Has the fanbase moved from one to another, or split between people playing oldschool and those who embraced the new game? Is the gameplay any good without points and balance, or were they necessary for the game as people feared it would be? Any and all insight is welcome.

HelloKitty
30-09-2015, 19:06
On this forum? Mostly negative.

Zywus
30-09-2015, 19:26
The rules system is roundly despised by most.

A minority enjoy it for the loose structure but even the people playing it doesn't generally do so without some extensive modding and self-made comps.

The models seem to have met some broader acclaim, but many find them rather bland as well.

It has more or less killed GW's place as the big fantasy game publisher. It was the spark to drive loads of malcontents into the arms of KoW and other systems.

Niall78
30-09-2015, 19:37
It's going great!

(For other publishers in the gaming industry)

thesoundofmusica
30-09-2015, 19:38
General consensus on most forums is overwhelmingly negative. You can get a hint of the usual feeling of entitlement in some of the critique but that's nothing new. Luckily for everyone there has never been more choice in wargaming. Luckily for me, general consensus has never had any impact on the fun I have with wargaming.

Obfuscate
30-09-2015, 19:56
It's not the same Warhammer. The rules are a simple to learn framework that beg to be tailored to your needs. In that regard it is very successful. I love the fun I am having being able to narratively do what I like, how I like.
The tourney WACers have gone elsewhere, they require the framework to be more rigid.

You have to wrap your head around this change but if you can I think it's the best version yet.

Zywus
30-09-2015, 20:02
The tourney WACers have gone elsewhere, they require the framework to be more rigid.
If anything, AoS is the perfect WAAC ruleset. Nothing is stopping you from bringing an "army" of heroes and monster that will slaughter a 'normal', 'fluffy' force with a little of everything 100% of the time.

Some may not bother since it's too easy I suppose.

de Selby
30-09-2015, 21:28
If anything, AoS is the perfect WAAC ruleset.

One of the most puzzling things about the regular slanging matches on here is the use of the term 'win at all costs players' to describe people who want to play fair games. Those are almost diametrically opposed concepts. It comes up so often I've been thinking about putting it in my sig.

Ben
30-09-2015, 21:29
It is everything you could have dreamed of and more.

Rescaled models that don't fit in with existing ranges.

No one plays the rules as written, even when they mean to.

Dozens of different comps attempting to balance the system.

Independents dropping GW products.

The Warhammer community splitting into loads of different directions.

GW telling investors they aren't a games company.

GW believing points are the enemy.

40k players getting spooked and people waiting to see if 40k is going to get the same treatment.

But on the plus side..........

A massive openness in the community to new rules sets and games.

A new appreciation for rules writing and narrative play from rules sets like Kings of War and Frostgrave.

Age of Sigmar may be in the process of ushering in a new golden era of gaming. Because GW have done what they did with sci fi naval, fantasy skirmish, sci-fi skirmish, small scale epic battles, etc and create a market and then scrap their product for that market leaving it to smaller and more agile and responsive companies with a better quality product to move in.

Ben
30-09-2015, 21:32
One of the most puzzling things about the regular slanging matches on here is the use of the term 'win at all costs players' to describe people who want to play fair games. Those are almost diametrically opposed concepts. It comes up so often I've been thinking about putting it in my sig.

It's the whole conflation of people who want to play a game decided by player skill and a bit of luck because the rules are well thought out, clearly written and fair, with people who rules lawyer everything and do everything short of blatant cheating to win games that is bizarre. It may be the only way for GW fanboys to try and shift criticism to the people pointing out the problems in the system, but it certainly is stupid.

Buddy Bear
30-09-2015, 21:36
Yeah, AOS is the best game on the market for the sort of player who wants to treat miniature gaming like playing a video game where you put in the cheat code to activate God Mode.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
30-09-2015, 21:58
One of the most puzzling things about the regular slanging matches on here is the use of the term 'win at all costs players' to describe people who want to play fair games. Those are almost diametrically opposed concepts. It comes up so often I've been thinking about putting it in my sig.

Watched a really interesting youtube video the other day, applying the classic Magic: The Gathering player personality trifecta of Johnny, Timmy, and Spike (http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b) to WHFB and wargaming in general. Really does a lot to explain these sorts of concepts.

The TL;DR is that:

TIMMY plays games for the "experience." In M:TG he loves big stompy creatures and big crazy spells. In WHFB he may love the aesthetic, or narrative battles, or throwing down big stompy monsters or big blasty spells. He loves the feeling he gets throwing those things down, and gets really frustrated when people don't let him play the game he wants.

JOHNNY plays games for the "mental exercise." In M:TG he loves getting off crazy combos. In WHFB he *LOVES* list building, crazy character builds, tricky deployment or reform shenanigans, etc. He loves the feeling of winning a game with style, but cares much more for the "style" than the "win."

SPIKE plays games for the "competitive element." In M:TG he loves things like beatdown or burn decks. In WHFB he loved power builds, was the sort of player who talked about "point efficiency," and is generally the sort of player who got invested in writing tacticas or doing battle reports where he breaks down the moves he made in game and discusses how they lead to victory or defeat. Spike plays games to win, but he wants the game to be clean and well-played on both sides and gets frustrated both people who use "tricks" to win as well as players who don't take the game as seriously.


Note that all of these gamers are looking to win, but each of them is looking for a specific TYPE of victory. And funnily enough...all of them think the other guys are WAAC players.

Johnny thinks that Spike's obsession with power builds is "WAAC," but also derides Timmy for getting whiny when they start to lose (Timmys can be the best sports, but they are just as often the worst losers when things don't go their way). Johnny is probably one of the people who most enjoys playing with Comp as he's bored of having to contend with the same Spike power builds all the time.

Spike thinks that Johnny's "gameyness" is WAAC, and strongly derides his tendency to use "tricks" rather than "skill" or "strategy" to win games. He also dislikes when Timmy gets whiny.

Timmy thinks that both Johnny and Spike are WAAC, Spike for his power builds and Johnny for his gamey tricks.

Leogun_91
30-09-2015, 22:05
People have remained angry. There are those that enjoy the new system but there seems to be more that dislike it (as polls and many peoples observations point to, seems there are certain places where the game holds strong however). Forums have been largely divided by peoples opinions making it hard to have conversations about anything but the quality of the system (such as what people think of new models, if a supplement is worth it or anything else that isn't the same argument) and would one belive the internet you are either ecstatic over the new ruleset or despise it with a fury to rival a legion of Bloodthirsters.
Myself I really dislike it as it removes everything I loved about warhammer and replaces it with being able to finish a game in shorter time (provided I use less models), my forecast would be that this is bad for the warhammer hobby but I can yet be proven wrong, a defenitive answer will have to wait until the next annual financial from GW or until they file for bankruptcy, whichever comes first.

Aezeal
30-09-2015, 22:09
Basicly the rules are short and clear and allow a lot and these rules are good to be expanded on a bit further. UNlike others I'd say only a little bit of comping is needed to play balanced games.. All the comps I've seen have less pages than any 8th edition comp that was played a lot. You don't have magic item selection anymore..but I've played most games with the same build most peoples used anyway so I dont really miss it. The biggest difference to me is the greatly increased mobility which makes things different.

HurrDurr
30-09-2015, 22:15
It's the whole conflation of people who want to play a game decided by player skill and a bit of luck because the rules are well thought out, clearly written and fair, with people who rules lawyer everything and do everything short of blatant cheating to win games that is bizarre. It may be the only way for GW fanboys to try and shift criticism to the people pointing out the problems in the system, but it certainly is stupid.

Mostly done by HelloKitty:D, just kidding but your statement is so true. Hating no points costs and doing GWS job for them has been equated to WAAC.

Holier Than Thou
30-09-2015, 22:18
The models are ok, the game itself is a ****** stick. Don't take my word for it though, take 5 minutes to read the 4 pages of rules and marvel at such gems as infinite summoning, pick whatever and however many models you want, and some charges being impossible to complete.

Whirlwind
30-09-2015, 23:01
Yeah the anger really is quite raw still. For example this turned up on YouTube this week

http://https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IzA2Z9G2uak (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IzA2Z9G2uak)

Which is a bit silly and disappointing just because of the waste of resources this creates.

Unfortunately the destruction of many years of background that many people enjoyed;
The replacement of the said background with in the 'bubble hammer there is only war'
The over simplification of the ruleset;
The lack of inspired models, which is not to say the models are technically sound, but all subtlety has gone now leaving us with very childlike model styles;

Has generally not inspired a lot of people (although a few appear to still like it) and hence it has completely fractured the community - which is a shame, despite WFB flaws. If GW had thought about things harder they could have designed the game to appeal to different types of players. You could have a AoS style skirmish game but also that scales up to a full points based rank and file game. Despite the debate there is no right or wrong way to play Warhammer, each is valid as the other. What AoS has done though has removed the ability to choose how players want to play a game. GW are trying to force the scenario, no points game down many people's throats that don't want it hence encouraging a mass exodus especially on top of the issue that shall not be named.

Agrimax
30-09-2015, 23:03
It's the whole conflation of people who want to play a game decided by player skill and a bit of luck because the rules are well thought out, clearly written and fair, with people who rules lawyer everything and do everything short of blatant cheating to win games that is bizarre. It may be the only way for GW fanboys to try and shift criticism to the people pointing out the problems in the system, but it certainly is stupid.

The other odd conflation is the idea that somehow points stop or make it harder for people to have 'narrative' games.

I fail to see how it's any harder to play a game that nominally has a points system while ignoring said points than to play a game that doesn't have points in the first place. And if you can't find opponents who want to play a 'points game' without them... well that rather suggests that they prefer a game to have points, and the only reason AoS has any traction is either someone doing GW's job for them and filling in the blanks, or people begrudingly putting up with the lack of points when they'd rather have them.

That people will say points are bad and giving examples where they've been implemented badly is the equivalent of saying "look at that emu. Wings are useless" while never looking up at all those birds in the sky.

HelloKitty
30-09-2015, 23:05
I haven't really seen anyone say points stop or make it harder for people to have narrative games before, thats a first for me. There are a lot of people who have said things like historicals and battle tech were played without points and that those are strong narratives, but it would be foolish to say points stop narrative games from happening. Points are just a balance mechanism.

Voss
30-09-2015, 23:11
I've quit Warhammer some time ago, but tracked the beggining of AoS reveal. I recount, mostly, how angry people were at the direction Warhammer was heading with it. Now that some time already passes and AoS even had some own releases, what is the general consensus/people's opinion on whether it hurt or helped warhammer? Has the fanbase moved from one to another, or split between people playing oldschool and those who embraced the new game? Is the gameplay any good without points and balance, or were they necessary for the game as people feared it would be? Any and all insight is welcome.
Garbage in a box is how it is. Bad for gameplay, bad for GW. Probably good for everyone else, including players in the long term, as GW abandons the fantasy market and companies with talent move in

Skargit Crookfang
30-09-2015, 23:20
AoS... ahh...

Here, how about this. Download the rules, and try a game with a friend/by yourself, whatever. Analyze it to death, play another couple, and see how you feel.

If you like it (and some do), make sure you have a community around you, so you can have regular opponents.

If you don't, and loved the rank-and-flank dynamic of WHFB, check out 9th Age or one of the other fan made "9th eds" that are, boom, free rulesets. It might be worth asking around your area to gauge interest in the system.

There are certainly areas in the world where AoS is hugely successful... but there seem to be many more where it is not. Do your research before committing thousands of dollars and ask yourself, what do you really want from the hobby?

Happy wargaming!