PDA

View Full Version : AoS: myths and reality



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Turgol
06-12-2015, 16:35
I thought I'd post a small reflexion, after half a year, about what AoS really is compared to former and even current assumption.

1) Myth 1: AoS is about toning WH down and making it more kid friendly

Status: absolutely false.
If anything, AoS was "toned up" and is completely kid unfriendly. AoS moved from a unit basis to a model basis regarding modelling. Given its prices, it is a game that is very unforgiven with young hobbyists. Example: back in 4th and beyond, a parent could buy its kid a box of 10 ugly, all alike orcs, which wasn't that expensive. The kid could ruin it while slowly learning to paint. We were all used to playing against ugly units and beatiful armies, in which each model would shine, were a thing of the expert few. The Varanguard, the expensive clam characters, even obvious AoS spirited units like Blightkings, were not made to be ruinable, but so that each model of an army would shine.

2)AoS was made to make a game too complex and expensive more accesible

Status: absolutely false

Back when AoS was released and everyone was making these absurd assumptions, a Facebook post of a GW veteran (Tuomas Pirinen I think) gave the right answer: GW is not moving to more accesibility, but to the "well to be", afluent, Apple consumers. People that without being millonaires, can expend € 100 in an evening just to accelerate their advancement in games like Clash of Clans, Dominations, etc. The movement to super heavy priced, high quality per model releases (Of which the Varanguard is now the paradigm), is the main purpose of AoS. Accesibility is secondary: rules are simply easy to understand on a basic level, but very complicated once you add warscrolls, battalions, campaigns and battletomes.

3) AoS is a simple skirmish game, which is meant to induct people to 40k and HH

Status: completely wrong

Once again: it is a more expensive and harder to paint universe as 40k. No introduction to anything.

What really is, is GW's vision Of an aesthetically driven, per model quality game, which is also priced under that logic: you used to spend 100 bucks on 20 miniatures which were mid quality and would take x time to be well painted. For the same price we ofrece you now 3 miniatures, heavily detailed and beatiful, which will also take x time to be fully paint but will look awesome.

Every other assumption about the nature of AoS is simple wrong.

Vazalaar
06-12-2015, 16:46
I agree and I am starting to warm up for AoS. I am really impressed with the Archaon releases.

Voss
06-12-2015, 17:40
Eh. You aren't really addressing the supposed 'myths' ( and I don't know that anyone believes those things or not), but really just complaining about prices.

It is just an over simplified skirmish game and more importantly, a bad one. And, yeah, the new stuff is stupidly overpriced, but that's GW for you. A new pricing thread is pretty unnecessary.


@Vazalaar- if you're warming up to AoS, you really aren't agreeing with the OP.

2DSick
06-12-2015, 17:45
I also agree... Only I'm completely turned off AoS.

Turgol
06-12-2015, 18:17
Eh. You aren't really addressing the supposed 'myths' ( and I don't know that anyone believes those things or not), but really just complaining about prices.

It is just an over simplified skirmish game and more importantly, a bad one. And, yeah, the new stuff is stupidly overpriced, but that's GW for you. A new pricing thread is pretty unnecessary.


@Vazalaar- if you're warming up to AoS, you really aren't agreeing with the OP.

I don't think you understood at all my post if you think I'am complaining about price. I'am not really complaining about anything or defending it. Just describing AoS by what it is and what GW aims at. Not just false simplifications like you just did.

Catweazle
06-12-2015, 18:27
The varanguard arn't too bad really. The only "problem" is they come in a box of three. Essentially they are powerful chaos lords (their background is they often act as enforces fo Archaon bringing unruly lords to heel) with big, extravagant models for £20 each. The old Archaon model was about at ten years ago.

Turgol
06-12-2015, 18:38
The varanguard arn't too bad really. The only "problem" is they come in a box of three. Essentially they are powerful chaos lords (their background is they often act as enforces fo Archaon bringing unruly lords to heel) with big, extravagant models for £20 each. The old Archaon model was about at ten years ago.

The Varanguard are indeed the source of my reflexion. I think you just have to understand what 3 $ 100 knights mean to understand what AoS is about. Once again I'am not complaining about it nor calling GW dumb or suicidal or anything. Quite the contrary: this price just expresses the per unit to per model or numeric battle to aesthetic experience for the Apple generation that I'am trying to express.

Catweazle
06-12-2015, 18:56
The Varanguard are indeed the source of my reflexion. I think you just have to understand what 3 $ 100 knights mean to understand what AoS is about. Once again I'am not complaining about it nor calling GW dumb or suicidal or anything. Quite the contrary: this price just expresses the per unit to per model or numeric battle to aesthetic experience for the Apple generation that I'am trying to express.

I should have been clearer. I was commenting more on the general reaction to their pricing. The original rumours pointed to a redo of chaos knight with slightly bigger/flashier models so the price was unexpected. What we actually got was a box of three dracoth sized mounted chaos lords.

On the whole I agree with the points you made.

Vazalaar
06-12-2015, 19:37
Eh. You aren't really addressing the supposed 'myths' ( and I don't know that anyone believes those things or not), but really just complaining about prices.

It is just an over simplified skirmish game and more importantly, a bad one. And, yeah, the new stuff is stupidly overpriced, but that's GW for you. A new pricing thread is pretty unnecessary.


@Vazalaar- if you're warming up to AoS, you really aren't agreeing with the OP.

No?

I agree with his points.

I am also starting to get interested in AoS, mainly thanks to the Archaon related releases. Slowly I am getting hyped and I am really looking forward to those dwarves.

Voss
06-12-2015, 20:37
I don't think you understood at all my post if you think I'am complaining about price. I'am not really complaining about anything or defending it. Just describing AoS by what it is and what GW aims at. Not just false simplifications like you just did.

Given that the central point in each of your 'myth rebuttals' centers around money, affluence or costs, I don't see how I have misunderstood you.

Indeed, for point three, you don't even address that it is actually a skirmish game, and simply state is is 'completely wrong...' by talking about the price and something about the difficulty of painting, which given the AoS starter models, is laughable. They're crap pieces very suitable for simply spraying and washing then picking out the few meaningful details in some random color.
Plus army #3 for AoS is literally exactly the lizardmen models that already exist, and people have been rush painting those in bulk for years.

Shifte
06-12-2015, 21:04
I guess I'm just too working class for Warhammer.

Darth Alec
06-12-2015, 21:17
I see what you're trying to do Vazalaar. Unfortunately, I don't think your arguments or your tone does the defence any justice. Your rebuttals don't have much to do with the initial complaint.

Do paint up some killer Varanguard though, those guys are beastly.

Dosiere
06-12-2015, 21:31
So the point of this thread is to point out that if you are the kind of person who doesn't need to look at the sticker price of items then AoS is for you? And that it's not a simple skirmish game?

Hasn't GW been about premium models for premium prices for like.. forever?

Ponge
06-12-2015, 21:54
I guess I'm just too working class for Warhammer.
You're not alone! :)

Buddy Bear
06-12-2015, 22:14
I'd say the other myth I've seen perpetuated is the idea that Age of Sigmar is intentionally meant to be played with a small number of models. It's clear by the lack of comp and the ability to take anything that GW's goal is for people to play ever larger games, not smaller games. The only indication for game size given in the rules assumes 100 models per side. That's not what I'd call a small skirmish game, especially since that constitutes more models than I typically see in standard 2000 point Warhammer Fantasy games.

Malagor
06-12-2015, 22:27
I'd say the other myth I've seen perpetuated is the idea that Age of Sigmar is intentionally meant to be played with a small number of models. It's clear by the lack of comp and the ability to take anything that GW's goal is for people to play ever larger games, not smaller games. The only indication for game size given in the rules assumes 100 models per side. That's not what I'd call a small skirmish game, especially since that constitutes more models than I typically see in standard 2000 point Warhammer Fantasy games.
Well yeah, if anyone thinks that GW wants you to have small armies then they are fooling themselves.
Yes you might do alright with buying just 1 box of varanknights but GW doesn't want you to just buy 1 box, they want you to buy 5 of them.

Spiney Norman
06-12-2015, 23:06
I'd say the other myth I've seen perpetuated is the idea that Age of Sigmar is intentionally meant to be played with a small number of models. It's clear by the lack of comp and the ability to take anything that GW's goal is for people to play ever larger games, not smaller games. The only indication for game size given in the rules assumes 100 models per side. That's not what I'd call a small skirmish game, especially since that constitutes more models than I typically see in standard 2000 point Warhammer Fantasy games.

I don't think it is intentionally meant to be played any particular way, they seem to have designed a game that works well with a few models or a lot of models, unlike wfb for instance where units of ten models (unless they were monstrous) or less were a complete joke and playing a game under 1000pts was extremely dull.

One of the strengths of AoS vs warhammer is that is does work well with relatively few models (because warhammer didn't), however AoS also works equally well with the number of models you were playing wfb 8th ed with or larger. We just tend to play smaller games because firstly our AoS armies are currently quite small and secondly we like the fast pace of smaller games.

AoS lends itself very well to an escalation league because unlike wfb you don't have to paint units of 50 models for units like goblins, state troops and skeletons for them to start being viable, you can literally buy a box of models, paint them and add them to your army as a functioning unit without buying four more copies of the same box to finish that unit off.

Zywus
06-12-2015, 23:13
Doesn't it take ages to play AoS battles with lots of models?

In WHFB, a unit or 40 takes no longer to manouver than a unit of 20. But since you need to move each model individually in AoS, sometimes 3 times or more per turn, and measure individual attack ranges in combat, and so on...

I'd say AoS is playable with a lesser number of models than WHFB, but it hardly scales well upwards.

Gillburg
07-12-2015, 00:14
So what i heard was there selling us less models, charging us more, Shrinking the miniature market and we should be ok with it.

They already burnt a ton of bridges anyway, £60 for 3 minis doesn't surprise me really they lost my interest long ago unless something attracts me ( like AoS boxed game, that was awesome ) but since then ive bought nothing.

I know many will disagree but when it comes with toy soldiers £1-2 per model for me is the sweet spot. I mean for £50 i can get a full army from mantic http://www.manticgames.com/mantic-shop/kings-of-war/getting-started/product/undead-army.html

No contest. Sorry GW.

Ben
07-12-2015, 00:21
Gates of Antares can be got from most independents and ebay sellers for £60, for the new sci fi miniatures game from Rick Priestley, who created 40k.

But yeah, AOS is the sort of game where you sit there and think, 'Who is this aimed at?' and it being aimed at people who can burn money because they have so much is not a surprising theory. The Apple generation, where people queue up to buy a new phone that is a marginal improvement on their current phone and has all the features an Android phone from three years ago had is certainly a thing. But Apple sell a whole aspirational lifestyle and promise buying Apple products makes you an interesting person, whereas GW just can't do that.

scruffyryan
07-12-2015, 00:24
Gates of Antares can be got from most independents and ebay sellers for £60, for the new sci fi miniatures game from Rick Priestley, who created 40k.

But yeah, AOS is the sort of game where you sit there and think, 'Who is this aimed at?' and it being aimed at people who can burn money because they have so much is not a surprising theory. The Apple generation, where people queue up to buy a new phone that is a marginal improvement on their current phone and has all the features an Android phone from three years ago had is certainly a thing. But Apple sells a bunch of overpriced poorly coded proprietary software that is generally riddled with security flaws.

Fixed that for you.

Ben
07-12-2015, 01:04
Fixed that for you.

Which is more socially acceptable, being an Apple customer or a GW customer.

Turgol
07-12-2015, 02:52
Which is more socially acceptable, being an Apple customer or a GW customer.

I think you are right about that Ben. Pirinen's argument does not hold there: GW is not aspirational. The analogy does not go so far. Only as far as to say that in our world, lots of people have great buying power without being millonaires. There is a mass, well to do market. GW seems to be pointing to the gamers of that world. And offering them inspiring miniatures for less the money they will spend on a tablet game.

This is of course problematic for me, for I have to worry about money: mortgage, two children, etc. On the other hand, I do like the "per model" philosophy of AoS. It has been a far more interesting painting experience than WHFB.

GrandmasterWang
07-12-2015, 03:42
I don't agree with the TC at all really except for maybe point 3.

Completely disagree with his point 1 & 2.

I am neutral to AOS but prefer 8th Edition.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Voss
07-12-2015, 04:50
I'd say the other myth I've seen perpetuated is the idea that Age of Sigmar is intentionally meant to be played with a small number of models. It's clear by the lack of comp and the ability to take anything that GW's goal is for people to play ever larger games, not smaller games. The only indication for game size given in the rules assumes 100 models per side. That's not what I'd call a small skirmish game, especially since that constitutes more models than I typically see in standard 2000 point Warhammer Fantasy games.
Skirmish and small aren't equivalents, especially since it is heavily dependent on where that 'small' falls for the game. A small necromunda game is very different from a small 40k game. But both are skirmish games, in that all the models move at least semi-independently. WFB wasn't skirmish, AoS is. Even when the same number of models are on the table.



AoS lends itself very well to an escalation league because unlike wfb you don't have to paint units of 50 models for units like goblins, state troops and skeletons for them to start being viable, you can literally buy a box of models, paint them and add them to your army as a functioning unit without buying four more copies of the same box to finish that unit off.
But most of them are unquestionably better if you do. So much so (as with state troops, which with a large enough unit, no longer need to roll to hit or wound), that your premise seems ridiculous.

Buddy Bear
07-12-2015, 05:53
Skirmish and small aren't equivalents

If they were then I would've used those words synonymously. I didn't. 'Small' was a modifier for 'skirmish." Putting those words together as I did is the exact opposite of saying that skirmish and small are synonymous, because if they were, then the word 'skimish' wouldn't require a modifier.

zoggin-eck
07-12-2015, 07:24
If they were then I would've used those words synonymously. I didn't. 'Small' was a modifier for 'skirmish." Putting those words together as I did is the exact opposite of saying that skirmish and small are synonymous, because if they were, then the word 'skimish' wouldn't require a modifier.

Yeah, weird thing for Voss to quote and give a "what is a skirmish game" lecture on. I thought your point was pretty clear.

I agree with Voss on the incentives to use larger units though. In WHFB there actually was a reason to take smaller units, "viable" or not. Because you ran out of points for the army, or wanted to save some here and there for another unit.

The idea that AoS was some attempt at making a smaller game to Warhammer really is something people went with at the start and continue today. You only need to look at their chaos "Path to Glory" update, switching the idea from a small game using a handful of models to pretty regular sized armies just chosen at random with a campaign to go with it.

Niall78
07-12-2015, 10:59
"It's a narrative game" - is probably one of the big myths. Any game can be a narrative game. That resides in the players head. I've played Monopoly and Cludo as narrative games. I'll role-play being Vanderbilt or Professor Plum.

2DSick
07-12-2015, 11:06
Gates of Antares can be got from most independents and ebay sellers for £60, for the new sci fi miniatures game from Rick Priestley, who created 40k.

I'm very excited for this game! It worth a mention that Rick Priestley started writing the world of GoA around about 2nd edition 40k :-)

Agrimax
07-12-2015, 11:31
"It's a narrative game" - is probably one of the big myths. Any game can be a narrative game. That resides in the players head. I've played Monopoly and Cludo as narrative games. I'll role-play being Vanderbilt or Professor Plum.

That’s part of a bigger myth I think – that all the things they removed/simplified are active attempts to focus on what’s left (narrative being a prime example). It’s much more likely to simply be laziness on the part of GW, attempting to do the bare minimum they have to in order to sell models.

Trying to present the removal of options in ways to play as if it’s a positive is very dubious reasoning, when the options left aren’t anything new and are still present in other games. If there’s this sudden group of ‘narrative’ players who’ve always wanted to play that way, you have to question how they never managed to speak to each other and agree to play that way prior to AoS, and what on earth is so special about it for them to come out of apparent isolated hiding all of a sudden.

Zywus
07-12-2015, 11:46
I'm very excited for this game! It worth a mention that Rick Priestley started writing the world of GoA around about 2nd edition 40k :-)

GoA is also a good example of a game that has been out for just a few months and still somehow we know a decent amount of stuff about the factions and the setting. Weird isn't it?

Arrahed
07-12-2015, 11:55
GoA is also a good example of a game that has been out for just a few months and still somehow we know a decent amount of stuff about the factions and the setting. Weird isn't it?
That's just because Warlord Games is not a miniature company and therefore can focus on fluff... oh wait...

Bloodknight
07-12-2015, 12:37
If Rick had really been working on it for 20 years, it's not surprising that it's quite fleshed-out, or is it? :).

HelloKitty
07-12-2015, 12:56
"It's a narrative game" - is probably one of the big myths. Any game can be a narrative game. That resides in the players head. I've played Monopoly and Cludo as narrative games. I'll role-play being Vanderbilt or Professor Plum.

After having this discussion for a while and a lot of time to think about it, it is very true that any game, even chess, can be a narrative game.

I think what people are trying to say when they say "its a narrative game" is that it will appeal to people who are more into narrative games than it would appeal to people more into system mastery and competition.

Warmachine and Kings of War can also be played narratively but to date I've never seen either done so because the type of player that it most attracts are system mastery players that are in it for the competition aspect of a player vs another player where the player with the better system mastery should do better. (a similar point of divide between AD&D players and Pathfinder players, for example if we're using an RPG analogy, and to a lesser extent the current edition of D&D)

So Age of Sigmar is as much a narrative game as chess and warmachine and kings of war are, its just that the players that warmachine etc attracts are vastly more likely to not really be interested in that kind of thing. Also players that like narrative gaming are often at polar ends of the spectrum from system mastery players because what the two player types want are exact opposites of each other (and hence decades of internet arguments over forums and the like on "nasty power gamers" vs "fluff bunnies" or whatever terms are used)

We are trying this experiment with xwing and armada in the spring. We have had very successful tournament leagues with both games, and in the spring we are going for a campaign which restricts builds based on resources. XWing and Aramada are both games that also cater heavily to system mastery competitive type players so we will see if a narrative camapaign will go off well with these games or if they will fall on their face because the bulk of the community is not interested in that kind of thing.

My bet is that it falls on its face because the type of players that those games attract are not really in it for that type of game.

Kahadras
07-12-2015, 13:28
It’s much more likely to simply be laziness on the part of GW, attempting to do the bare minimum they have to in order to sell models.

Pretty much this. GW seem to have decided that because they were going to offer the core rules for free that very little time or effort should go into making them.

Niall78
07-12-2015, 13:31
After having this discussion for a while and a lot of time to think about it, it is very true that any game, even chess, can be a narrative game.

I think what people are trying to say when they say "its a narrative game" is that it will appeal to people who are more into narrative games than it would appeal to people more into system mastery and competition.

Warmachine and Kings of War can also be played narratively but to date I've never seen either done so because the type of player that it most attracts are system mastery players that are in it for the competition aspect of a player vs another player where the player with the better system mastery should do better. (a similar point of divide between AD&D players and Pathfinder players, for example if we're using an RPG analogy, and to a lesser extent the current edition of D&D)

So Age of Sigmar is as much a narrative game as chess and warmachine and kings of war are, its just that the players that warmachine etc attracts are vastly more likely to not really be interested in that kind of thing. Also players that like narrative gaming are often at polar ends of the spectrum from system mastery players because what the two player types want are exact opposites of each other (and hence decades of internet arguments over forums and the like on "nasty power gamers" vs "fluff bunnies" or whatever terms are used)

We are trying this experiment with xwing and armada in the spring. We have had very successful tournament leagues with both games, and in the spring we are going for a campaign which restricts builds based on resources. XWing and Aramada are both games that also cater heavily to system mastery competitive type players so we will see if a narrative camapaign will go off well with these games or if they will fall on their face because the bulk of the community is not interested in that kind of thing.

My bet is that it falls on its face because the type of players that those games attract are not really in it for that type of game.

Players that Warmachine attracts? Players that Kings of War attracts? What a load of nonsense.

I don't play Warmachine - players in my war-gaming club do play it. They are deep in a campaign at the moment. I've only ever seen them play scenarios or campaign games. None of them play tournaments or win at all costs pick-up games to the best of my knowledge.

A few others and myself push the fantasy side. We transferred from WFB to KoW after the fantasy players voted to dump AoS after testing. We are currently working on building a campaign based on Mighty Empires - which we used for WFB for the last decade or so. I bought Dungeon Saga last week. Hopefully the campaign will involve dungeon crawling and tiny to large scale KoW games playing out the encounters on the campaign map.

I play Armada - I'm just getting involved with X-Wing. Both games are played in my area in both scenario and campaign play as well as just straight up fights.

Where this idea comes from that the unbalanced mess that is AoS is better for 'narrative' style game play is strange. Running a campaign like we are doing for KoW is impossible with AoS - it has no way to balance forces and match them to a campaign system. It is also difficult to devise good stand-alone scenarios due to the same issue.

What is a narrative game anyway? Every game and game type can be a narrative experience. A completely balanced hyper-competitive game can be fluffy as hell depending on the players attitude. A scenario game can be reduced to a maths problem if the players want to go that way. To say a game or a game style promotes certain play styles is untrue and in my view disingenuous. To promote AoS above the many great games on the market at the moment as somehow being great at 'narrative' play is also silly. I suppose when basic game play is broken and everyone who plays it comps it you need to be able to say something good to advertise it.

HelloKitty
07-12-2015, 13:39
to me its as silly as claiming Kings of War is fun. ;)

Catweazle
07-12-2015, 13:44
That's just because Warlord Games is not a miniature company and therefore can focus on fluff... oh wait...

Still having trouble with that one I see.

Agrimax
07-12-2015, 13:51
Warmachine and Kings of War can also be played narratively but to date I've never seen either done so because the type of player that it most attracts are system mastery players that are in it for the competition aspect of a player vs another player where the player with the better system mastery should do better.


Well in the case of WMH at least (I have no real knowledge of KoW), large swathes of No Quarter magazine are devoted to scenarios and mini-campaigns with a heavy narrative element, including new characters for use only in those scenarios to flesh out the backstory. Not something PP would be paying people to create if it wasn’t being utilised by a significant proportion of their customers.

There’s also an entire “creative community” section of their forums devoted to fan art, fiction, scenarios and the like which is very active.

You (amongst others) have been at great pains to point out that anecdote of poor reception of AoS by individuals in specific locales is not valid as a sign of how AoS is or isn’t more widely played. By the same token, your own experience of how WMH or KoW is played is an equally incomplete viewpoint.

Arrahed
07-12-2015, 13:54
to me its as silly as claiming Kings of War is fun. ;)
There is however a difference between saying a game is mechanically bad because it is basically unplayable without modification and saying that an game is not fun.

To phrase it differently: You say claiming that Kings of War is fun is silly. That is very different to saying that it is silly to consider AOS a prime example of narrative gaming. Because none of the game mechanics relate to narrative gaming more than any other game.

One is a matter of taste. The other one is stating a fact.

Niall78
07-12-2015, 13:57
to me its as silly as claiming Kings of War is fun. ;)

I hear you. I feel the same about Warmachine and a host of other games the same as AoS. ;)

I don't claim these games aren't suited to certain play styles or only attract a certain type of player though. I just don't like them due to settings - Warmachine or broken mechanics or balance - AoS. Sometimes a good setting will negate negatives in the game-play - WFB.

maze ironheart
07-12-2015, 14:06
Just look at the new chaos knights $100 for 5 yes 5 knights Warmachine and hordes is sounding better and better at this rate.

Zywus
07-12-2015, 14:35
It might be worth noting that KoW has official (if somewhat barebones) rules for running a campaign, including such things as Character Injury tables and stuff that affect your army after battles.
http://www.manticgames.com/organised-play.html
http://www.manticgames.com/SiteData/Root/File/Organised%20Play/Kow-campaignrules.pdf

Maybe that doesn't fit the definition of narrative gaming (a term which I assume can mean whatever is needed when attempting to keep ones arguments consistent) since it assumes (but don't in any way demand) people will initially start with equally matched forces.

KoW is played with scenarios other than those in the rulebook and with fan made add-on rules all the time. Not on HelloKitty's adventure island of course but it happens elsewhere.

samael
07-12-2015, 14:47
Just look at the new chaos knights $100 for 5 yes 5 knights Warmachine and hordes is sounding better and better at this rate.

I think you mean 3 knights? ( only building your case for you, I know, you're welcome 😉 )

Philhelm
07-12-2015, 15:48
How can AOS be geared towards narrative play when there is no depth in its background? You're either trying to eat the opposing army, or trying to stop the opposing army from eating you.

Voss
07-12-2015, 16:19
It might be worth noting that KoW has official (if somewhat barebones) rules for running a campaign, including such things as Character Injury tables and stuff that affect your army after battles.
http://www.manticgames.com/organised-play.html
http://www.manticgames.com/SiteData/Root/File/Organised%20Play/Kow-campaignrules.pdf

Maybe that doesn't fit the definition of narrative gaming (a term which I assume can mean whatever is needed when attempting to keep ones arguments consistent) since it assumes (but don't in any way demand) people will initially start with equally matched forces.

KoW is played with scenarios other than those in the rulebook and with fan made add-on rules all the time. Not on HelloKitty's adventure island of course but it happens elsewhere.

Bah. Next you'll mention Destiny of Kngs, the upcoming Mantic book on narrative and campaign games. Stop letting facts get in the way, only AoS has pure narrative play, despite the complete lack of interesting narratives.

Folomo
07-12-2015, 16:32
Common guys, don't bash on HK. You have to remember that he lives in a wargaming hell, where you are either a tournament player or you are fluff player, with no point in between (and there fluff players where the minority).
While this may seen difficult to believe, since most other groups are far less radical, with more people in between, this phenomenon has polarized his area (and view on games).
So be civil pls, AoS may not be good or decent for everyone, but it appears to be excellent in some specific situations.

BramGaunt
07-12-2015, 16:35
Myth: AoS is a tabletop game.

Reality: It is the biggest laugh of 2015 I had so far, and that includes the Fantastic 4 Movie.

2DSick
07-12-2015, 17:42
It might be worth noting that KoW has official (if somewhat barebones) rules for running a campaign, including such things as Character Injury tables and stuff that affect your army after battles.
http://www.manticgames.com/organised-play.html
http://www.manticgames.com/SiteData/Root/File/Organised%20Play/Kow-campaignrules.pdf

Maybe that doesn't fit the definition of narrative gaming (a term which I assume can mean whatever is needed when attempting to keep ones arguments consistent) since it assumes (but don't in any way demand) people will initially start with equally matched forces.

KoW is played with scenarios other than those in the rulebook and with fan made add-on rules all the time. Not on HelloKitty's adventure island of course but it happens elsewhere.

Even better. In the new year they are releasing their first, full colour campaign book. Around the same time as the Abyssal legions are due for release.

Check it out...

https://m.facebook.com/manticgames/photos/a.387258332318.165358.104345532318/10153698835287319/?type=3&source=54


HK can't resist bringing up comp vs narrative. You just have full sentence macros for it by now ;-) :-*

I'm lucky that the one group that has adopted KoW over anything else is the "fluff bunny" (as you put it... It's new to me! Sounds like some seraphon thing :-))) group. We've been doing all manner of home made scenarios (several a nigh at low points building up to a massive One) to drive a narrative that's been influencing our scenario design.

Piano Man
07-12-2015, 18:25
As I read the forums, it seems the term 'narrative game' gets thrown around a lot with different meanings. Are we all talking the same thing?

In my mind:

A 'narrative' game takes place in a specific time and setting. It could be a one-off meeting engagement, it could be a specific scenario (defending a river crossing, etc) but it would be 'personalized' so to speak in that setting. Perhaps named generals and heroes, but it is specific to the setting and part of an ongoing campaign. Not necessarily a played-out campaign, but the player has it at least in his head. It gives the player a sense of fighting for something bigger.

A 'scenario' game is a specific scenario - perhaps that defense of a river, a siege, or an even meeting engagement. It does not have to be in a specific setting. Its just army A is defending the pass, or something.

A 'tournament' game is that played in a tournament with no regard to the setting that it takes place in. A tournament will usually have scenarios involved, but will hopefully be balanced in that it is played in a competitive setting.

'Tournament players' seem to be defined as ultra-competitive players that min-max, etc. Its a reason I would have never played in certain tournaments. However, not all players that play in tournaments are 'tournament' players. I always played in Warhammer Ancient Battles tournaments, and had a blast - and would never enjoy playing with ultra competitive players.

As an ancients player, I like the setting of the armies I collect. I read the historical setting; how they fought; how they lived etc. Of course, with the wide period covered by ancients gaming, I would define most of my games as scenario games because most of them involved armies that would never have fought in real life.

Therefore, specifically I like what fantasy players here call a 'core tax'. A culture should not have access to everything, generally. Its part of wargame generalship to work to the strengths of your army, and try to account for the weaknesses. WAB also did well, in my mind, by smaller rules accentuating the 'flavor' of that army - perhaps not always totally realistic, but hit my sweet spot.

I remember when younger, WHFB had small give-away leaflet brochures, one for each army, that described that same concept - strengths and weaknesses, and how it fit the culture. I couldnt afford to do it then, or didnt know other gamers, but those sure fired up the imagination.

HelloKitty
07-12-2015, 18:42
I hear you. I feel the same about Warmachine and a host of other games the same as AoS. ;)

I don't claim these games aren't suited to certain play styles or only attract a certain type of player though. I just don't like them due to settings - Warmachine or broken mechanics or balance - AoS. Sometimes a good setting will negate negatives in the game-play - WFB.

That can be yeah. Warmachine actually has a really good back story, I just don't like steampunk very much. Despite it having a good story, I don't like warmachine because its very much a game that involves high degree of system-mastery and knowing how to game the system properly to do well. Its about memorization of forces and doing things in the right order. Those are things that I got into when I was younger but over the years fell out of interest in.

The people here that play warmachine largely don't do it for the setting, they do it because the common category for warmachine is that it is a game very much designed for gamers that are interested in rules first and that are interested in games that put a large degree of game play in system-mastery. I have acknowledged before that anything can be a narrative game, and PP has definitely put a lot of background for warmachine campaigns to exist in - but I have never really seen sites dedicated to those type of games with warmachine and of course to my knowledge one has never happened within 50 miles of where I live since its inception. We tried twice and both times out of like 30 guys that played it we had 3 or 4 semi-interested.

Kings of War has campaign material. Thats great. Like chess and other games before it, Kings of War can definitely be played as a campaign. The people here interested in it are again all system-mastery type players that are interested in it because Age of Sigmar is not a system-mastery game, 8th edition is dead, and Alessio posted on his facebook that he designed Kings of War to be a tournament game driven by and for competitive events, so the system-mastery players of course would choose that game because that is what appeals to them more.

The people that are primarily interested in Age of Sigmar are for the most part all people who enjoy scenario driven games and aren't as big on rules #1 and system-mastery #1. Thats where I'm saying that different games attract different types of people, just like Advanced Dungeons and Dragons attracts different people than Pathfinder does in the RPG world (one is more DM-Fiat and loose, the other is very rules heavy and about character builds and system optimization/mastery - both can and are used to tell stories)

So when I say Age of Sigmar caters to narrative players, and people dismiss it because other games *can also* cater to narrative players, thats where the division comes into play. Yes WM and KoW can cater to narrative players too but those players tend to also care very much about system-mastery and builds and rules #1 so there is the difference in camps.

I don't play Kings of War for several reasons:
* I'm not interested in its background (yes I know people say the same for AoS and thats fair enough)
* The models largely look like crap (personal opinion)
* I don't like the level of abstraction that runs rampant in that game. The nerve system and not removing models turns me off as much as Kill the caster always being a thing all the time despite scenario turns me off in WM.
* I don't like how generic the magic is
* I don't like absolute static games where there is nothing to react to. Part of why I liked 8th edition so much was the random charge etc made it so no battle plan was 100% reliable barring a bad choice, because I prefer games that reflect reality more where no matter how great your plan is something unforseen can pop up that tests your reactive ability

So even if KoW produced a 300 page magnum opus on campaign gaming, I still would not play KoW because the points above are not addressed. All of those are of course personal subject matter that we apply our own pros and cons to, but Kings of War is far and away the last game I would ever consider playing. I'd play warmachine for my fantasy game before I played Kings of War, and that's saying something. (I quit warhammer in 7th edition and Kings of War largely to me reflects 7th edition warhammer)

Niall78
07-12-2015, 19:23
That can be yeah. Warmachine actually has a really good back story, I just don't like steampunk very much. Despite it having a good story, I don't like warmachine because its very much a game that involves high degree of system-mastery and knowing how to game the system properly to do well. Its about memorization of forces and doing things in the right order. Those are things that I got into when I was younger but over the years fell out of interest in.

The people here that play warmachine largely don't do it for the setting, they do it because the common category for warmachine is that it is a game very much designed for gamers that are interested in rules first and that are interested in games that put a large degree of game play in system-mastery. I have acknowledged before that anything can be a narrative game, and PP has definitely put a lot of background for warmachine campaigns to exist in - but I have never really seen sites dedicated to those type of games with warmachine and of course to my knowledge one has never happened within 50 miles of where I live since its inception. We tried twice and both times out of like 30 guys that played it we had 3 or 4 semi-interested.

Kings of War has campaign material. Thats great. Like chess and other games before it, Kings of War can definitely be played as a campaign. The people here interested in it are again all system-mastery type players that are interested in it because Age of Sigmar is not a system-mastery game, 8th edition is dead, and Alessio posted on his facebook that he designed Kings of War to be a tournament game driven by and for competitive events, so the system-mastery players of course would choose that game because that is what appeals to them more.

The people that are primarily interested in Age of Sigmar are for the most part all people who enjoy scenario driven games and aren't as big on rules #1 and system-mastery #1. Thats where I'm saying that different games attract different types of people, just like Advanced Dungeons and Dragons attracts different people than Pathfinder does in the RPG world (one is more DM-Fiat and loose, the other is very rules heavy and about character builds and system optimization/mastery - both can and are used to tell stories)

So when I say Age of Sigmar caters to narrative players, and people dismiss it because other games *can also* cater to narrative players, thats where the division comes into play. Yes WM and KoW can cater to narrative players too but those players tend to also care very much about system-mastery and builds and rules #1 so there is the difference in camps.

I don't play Kings of War for several reasons:
* I'm not interested in its background (yes I know people say the same for AoS and thats fair enough)
* The models largely look like crap (personal opinion)
* I don't like the level of abstraction that runs rampant in that game. The nerve system and not removing models turns me off as much as Kill the caster always being a thing all the time despite scenario turns me off in WM.
* I don't like how generic the magic is
* I don't like absolute static games where there is nothing to react to. Part of why I liked 8th edition so much was the random charge etc made it so no battle plan was 100% reliable barring a bad choice, because I prefer games that reflect reality more where no matter how great your plan is something unforseen can pop up that tests your reactive ability

So even if KoW produced a 300 page magnum opus on campaign gaming, I still would not play KoW because the points above are not addressed. All of those are of course personal subject matter that we apply our own pros and cons to, but Kings of War is far and away the last game I would ever consider playing. I'd play warmachine for my fantasy game before I played Kings of War, and that's saying something. (I quit warhammer in 7th edition and Kings of War largely to me reflects 7th edition warhammer)

How do you know what type of gamers prefer what types of game play and how that influences their choice of gaming system?

You've got a whole set of assumptions based on your local area. You've taken an insignificant percentage of the war-gaming hobby - your area - and used that to paint broad brush strokes over the hobby in general.

That's especially dangerous to do considering how strange and atypical your area seems to be. Things like on-line hate campaigns against players organising scenario play and direct confrontation - including shouting in the face - by staff in shops who didn't appreciate scenario play.

System mastery versus scenario play is another smoke screen to be honest. Fluffy campaign players can be game systems masters. These things aren't exclusive. Most playing a game for a few years would have mastery of that system - not sure how that's supposed to measure how much or how little they engage in fluff, scenario or campaign play.

HelloKitty
07-12-2015, 20:03
How do you know what type of gamers prefer what types of game play and how that influences their choice of gaming system?


Years of observation and watching online polls. There were a couple of Kings of War polls on other forums asking why people left GW for Kings of War, and a good solid chunk were because of the ruleset and KoW was more about player skill than random rolls. Same with 9th age. There was a large amount of "the setting" as well, and surely that is considered, but KoW really had no setting up until now so people were abandoning one not constructed setting for another not constructed setting.

When people ask "why do you play warmachine over 40k" again the answers are pretty significantly (and again this is online forums, not just my area) about how the rules favor player skill over luck of dice and system-mastery type answers as preference.

System Mastery is not a smokescreen. There was a dragon article on it years ago, and other game designers have discussed it specifically (mostly discussing the RPG industry with "crunchy" rulesets vs DM Fiat rulesets). It is something game designers know and understand and develop around and is something discussed fairly commonly on RPG forums when discussing Pathfinder vs D&D.

samael
07-12-2015, 20:26
Years of observation and watching online polls.
But but I'm thoroughly confused. During the last couple of months I have learned that we should never trust online polls because of bias and a limited group of participants. Don't tell me that has changed. <sees reality crumble around himself>

Seriqolm
07-12-2015, 20:30
Years of observation and watching online polls. There were a couple of Kings of War polls on other forums asking why people left GW for Kings of War, and a good solid chunk were because of the ruleset and KoW was more about player skill than random rolls. Same with 9th age. There was a large amount of "the setting" as well, and surely that is considered, but KoW really had no setting up until now so people were abandoning one not constructed setting for another not constructed setting.

When people ask "why do you play warmachine over 40k" again the answers are pretty significantly (and again this is online forums, not just my area) about how the rules favor player skill over luck of dice and system-mastery type answers as preference.

System Mastery is not a smokescreen. There was a dragon article on it years ago, and other game designers have discussed it specifically (mostly discussing the RPG industry with "crunchy" rulesets vs DM Fiat rulesets). It is something game designers know and understand and develop around and is something discussed fairly commonly on RPG forums when discussing Pathfinder vs D&D.


How do you know what type of gamers prefer what types of game play and how that influences their choice of gaming system?

You've got a whole set of assumptions based on your local area. You've taken an insignificant percentage of the war-gaming hobby - your area - and used that to paint broad brush strokes over the hobby in general.

That's especially dangerous to do considering how strange and atypical your area seems to be. Things like on-line hate campaigns against players organising scenario play and direct confrontation - including shouting in the face - by staff in shops who didn't appreciate scenario play.

System mastery versus scenario play is another smoke screen to be honest. Fluffy campaign players can be game systems masters. These things aren't exclusive. Most playing a game for a few years would have mastery of that system - not sure how that's supposed to measure how much or how little they engage in fluff, scenario or campaign play.

I think these two video's help explain...


Vince is a game designer and is interested in the makeup of rulesets.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iemNBE97tl4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z26QKCr4BiA



Extra Credits has loads of game design insights here's one..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow&index=11&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5DZUWTC25vSZbJ6OCk1XB1p (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxpW2ltDNow&index=11&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5DZUWTC25vSZbJ6OCk1XB1p)

Buddy Bear
07-12-2015, 20:30
to me its as silly as claiming Kings of War is fun. ;)

If only it can be as fun as games which require 30 page comp documents made by fans to be playable. ;)

Niall78
07-12-2015, 20:57
If only it can be as fun as games which require 30 page comp documents made by fans to be playable. ;)

What's confusing is all of the comps I've seen have been an attempt to balance the game. Making it more tournament or pick up game friendly.

Why are these comp producers ignoring the "narrative" genius that is AoS and imposing "tournament" style play on it?

pox
07-12-2015, 21:09
What's confusing is all of the comps I've seen have been an attempt to balance the game. Making it more tournament or pick up game friendly.

Why are these comp producers ignoring the "narrative" genius that is AoS and imposing "tournament" style play on it?

I actually agree with this. I'm always looking for more ways to simply make the RAW rules work. I don't think trying to make it a balanced wargame suitable for tournament-style competition is the way to go. There are already other systems that do that already, and you sacrifice what few things are truly unique to AoS by trying to make a flat, pitched-battle style rules set for it.

Seriqolm
07-12-2015, 21:11
What's confusing is all of the comps I've seen have been an attempt to balance the game. Making it more tournament or pick up game friendly.

Why are these comp producers ignoring the "narrative" genius that is AoS and imposing "tournament" style play on it?


Because comp is trying to wedge the game into a different mindset, that's what comp is for. Mythical Game balance only interests the gamers out there, narrative gamers don't really worry about balance as its reflecting a real or imaginary battle where game balance is not an issue. There are plenty of video's on youtube explaining this, the video's I put up give a primer on mindsets, watch them it might help you understand your own mindset.

Buddy Bear
07-12-2015, 21:13
Because comp is trying to wedge the game into a different mindset, that's what comp is for. Mythical Game balance only interests the gamers out there, narrative gamers don't really worry about balance as its reflecting a real or imaginary battle were balance was never an issue.

The thing is, though, that Azyrcomp was apparently developed and is used by HK's narrative gamers. If the game as-is is so useful for narrative games, then why did they develop a 30-page comp system for it so that it could play more like the dreaded system mastery/tournament games?

Seriqolm
07-12-2015, 21:31
The thing is, though, that Azyrcomp was apparently developed and is used by HK's narrative gamers. If the game as-is is so useful for narrative games, then why did they develop a 30-page comp system for it so that it could play more like the dreaded system mastery/tournament games?


Yes that does seem to undermine is his own argument but many narrative campaigns come with supplement rules like Malifaux's Shifting Loyalties campaign (which my group are playing at the moment), I've not read the Azyrcomp so I'm not sure what its trying achieve.

Buddy Bear
07-12-2015, 21:53
That's different, though. That's a company providing variety for a wide range of player tastes. This, however, is a fanmade 30-page system providing points values and rules for army composition, among other changes, for AOS produced by a group which supposedly consists of narrative gamers who got into AOS because it had no points or army composition and was supposedly better for narrative play because of that.

It strikes me as odd that this group of players loves AOS because of the lack of points and how supposedly it's better for narrative play because of that, but as soon as AOS came out they immediately set to work on giving it points values and army composition rules and have apparently played over 900 games using those rules.

Agrimax
07-12-2015, 22:16
It is an interesting point. What does AoS + comp providing full points values and restrictions on unit types offer narratively that any game that includes a"manufacturer comp" not? Other than as something fanmade, a potential point of contention if people don't agree with something made by fans not actual game designers (And that's not to underrate what fans can accomplish - compared to the supposed professionals in GW, I suspect fans are better capable of achieving a balanced point system - but many people will not see things that way)

skeptico
07-12-2015, 22:27
We can go around this issue of narrative vs competitive gaming ad nauseum forever, but I strongly suspect that, for those attracted to AoS, the appeal is much more likely to lie in the models. It looks strongly to me as though AoS was conceived as a game that collectors can play with the models they wanted to buy, assemble and paint for their own sake, rather than a game that requires you to buy large amounts of models you may not want, in order to have a viable or legal force. Certainly that's a large part of the appeal of AoS for me. I'm busy, I have limited hobby time, and when I get it I want to paint a few models that seem really special, not dozens of static rank and file. I'm attracted to AoS, since it's compatible with this - the way the new ranges are shaping up, each model has more individual appeal, units can be smaller, and within units there's more variety in weapons, pose, etc.

However good their rules may be (I couldn't say), I could never have the slightest interest in KoW, not only because the model range is so poor, but because the design concepts are uniformly so derivative. I don't think I've seen a single model in their range that isn't 'orc with axe', or something equally generic. Little variation in kit size (almost everything infantry or cavalry size), and no conceptual creativity. I'm just not prepared to spend my hobby time assembling a KoW army, even if the game at the end of it would be good. And since I know my group are pretty easy going, I know I don't have to worry about them exploiting the looseness of the army selection rules in AoS in the way that seems to worry some people so much. So the problems with AoS are manageable, and it's an infinitely superior overall hobby package to most competitor products in fantasy gaming, IMO. Obviously this is only my assessment of my own hobby needs, but there we go. I suspect I'm far from alone in judging the minis to be the single overriding factor in choosing a game system.

Agrimax
07-12-2015, 23:04
It looks strongly to me as though AoS was conceived as a game that collectors can play with the models they wanted to buy, assemble and paint for their own sake, rather than a game that requires you to buy large amounts of models you may not want, in order to have a viable or legal force.

A collector who buys a model for the sake of the model has no interest in playing with it, though. I have a significant number of models that I've bought purely because I love the model, the most recent being a FW carmine dragon. I am not about to play AoS just to be able to use that model, though. I am equally a gamer, who will buy the models needed for a game I enjoy for the sake of the game. And often in fact, despite the effort I will put into models I collect, I'm happy to ebay prepainted models for gaming.

The two things do not necessarily have an intrinsic link. Someone who collects may or may not want to game. Someone who games may or may not want to collect - and even if they want to do both, there's not necessarily any feeling that the two have to coincide.

Spiney Norman
07-12-2015, 23:06
If only it can be as fun as games which require 30 page comp documents made by fans to be playable. ;)

If we're negatively judging a game on how much fan-made content is being used by players it makes 9th age look pretty bad to be honest ;)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using comp or house rules in your games, a great many people I know use all kinds of personalised additional content in their games of wfb and 40k, in fact the very fact that so many people have gone to the trouble of working out comp packs for AoS demonstrates that a fair number of people actually are playing it.


A collector who buys a model for the sake of the model has no interest in playing with it, though. I have a significant number of models that I've bought purely because I love the model, the most recent being a FW carmine dragon. I am not about to play AoS just to be able to use that model, though. I am equally a gamer, who will buy the models needed for a game I enjoy for the sake of the game. And often in fact, despite the effort I will put into models I collect, I'm happy to ebay prepainted models for gaming.

The two things do not necessarily have an intrinsic link. Someone who collects may or may not want to game. Someone who games may or may not want to collect - and even if they want to do both, there's not necessarily any feeling that the two have to coincide.

You're looking at it a little black and white, I guess there probably are a few people out there who play table top wargames but aren't interested in the models (and use little cardboard tokens to represent models etc) and equally there might be people out the who buy models to paint and sit in a cabinet and never get them out for a game, but in my experience the vast majority do a bit of both, even if they primarily feel more of an affinity for one or the other.

If you have no interest in models at all, table top wargaming would seem an odd hobby to pick up, at the end of the day you can play strategy video games or even strategic board games for much cheaper even than a KoW army will cost you, let alone GW minis.

Buddy Bear
07-12-2015, 23:13
If we're negatively judging a game on how much fan-made content is being used by players it makes 9th age look pretty bad to be honest ;)

Not quite the same, as people played 8th edition for years without pages and pages of fanmade comp. They certainly weren't producing reams of comp systems from the very day it was released.


There's absolutely nothing wrong with using comp or house rules in your games, a great many people I know use all kinds of personalised additional content in their games of wfb and 40k, in fact the very fact that so many people have gone to the trouble of working out comp packs for AoS demonstrates that a fair number of people actually are playing it.

I never said there was. But when a game has people putting out comp systems for it from Day 1, when the majority of its biggest fans seem to only play with it when they're using heavily comped versions of it... that says quite a bit about the quality, or lack thereof, found in that game. Any and every game can be played with fanmade comp and house rules, but AOS seems to be the only game that had dozens of comp systems made for it from the very day it was released, and which is predominantly played with massive fan comping rather than using just the base rules. Something which can't be said about Malifaux, Infinity, Kings of War, Warmachine, Hordes, X-Wing, Armada, Dropfleet Commander, Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition, etc.

Agrimax
07-12-2015, 23:14
If we're negatively judging a game on how much fan-made content is being used by players it makes 9th age look pretty bad to be honest ;)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using comp or house rules in your games, a great many people I know use all kinds of personalised additional content in their games of wfb and 40k, in fact the very fact that so many people have gone to the trouble of working out comp packs for AoS demonstrates that a fair number of people actually are playing it.

The usual use of house rules is to make minor adjustments for personal preference, amongst a close gaming group and not as a necessity for basic playability of a game. Tournament comping is a whole different ballgame, one that many never ever have any interest in (I've not in 25+ years of gaming) and not a suitable comparison to your average friendly game.

From that perspective you can absolutely say that whatever fan made 9th edition WHFB is going to be problematic. Many people don't deny that and it's precisely why they're so pissed that GW has removed support. Some people persevere in the hope of keeping something alive, in precisely the same way that some people persevere with AoS in the hope of creating something playable. Human nature.

akai
07-12-2015, 23:15
Myth: My Bretonnian or Empire Army collection is obsolete in AoS.
Status: There are unit warscrolls and warscroll battalions for Bretonnian and Empire models. So if someone wants to play an Empire army or a Brettonian army in AoS they can.

---

For the posts about HelloKitty liking narrative play and using Azyr Comp...if the group's "story" revolves only around conflicts of few characters leading large amount of troops, then the Azyr Comp seems to provide structure/guideline to people wanting to fit within the boundaries of the group's "story." It is consistent with what HelloKitty has written before on the "stories" that he wants to participate in.

Spiney Norman
07-12-2015, 23:19
The usual use of house rules is to make minor adjustments for personal preference, amongst a close gaming group and not as a necessity for basic playability of a game. Tournament comping is a whole different ballgame, one that many never ever have any interest in (I've not in 25+ years of gaming) and not a suitable comparison to your average friendly game.

Myth: comp is required to play AoS, reality: it works fine out of the box, but some people like to have comp as an option.

The existence of comp packs for AoS does not infer that they are required to play the game any more than the existence of comp packs for wfb (ETC, Swedish comp etc) meant that it was impossible to play wfb without it.

Agrimax
07-12-2015, 23:24
Myth: comp is required to play AoS, reality: it works fine out of the box, but some people like to have comp as an option.


Myth: Anything but a fraction of the general wargaming player base are interested in a game with no balancing mechanism. Most people want a fair fight, that in some way is quantifiably so (however imperfectly).

If this weren't the case, there wouldn't be such a plethora of comp packs out there for this game that's apparently playable out the box.

Buddy Bear
07-12-2015, 23:41
Myth: AOS is playable out of the box.
Reality: Hardly anyone plays it without some form of comp, because it's not playable.

Seriqolm
07-12-2015, 23:44
Not quite the same, as people played 8th edition for years without pages and pages of fanmade comp. They certainly weren't producing reams of comp systems from the very day it was released.



I never said there was. But when a game has people putting out comp systems for it from Day 1, when the majority of its biggest fans seem to only play with it when they're using heavily comped versions of it... that says quite a bit about the quality, or lack thereof, found in that game. Any and every game can be played with fanmade comp and house rules, but AOS seems to be the only game that had dozens of comp systems made for it from the very day it was released, and which is predominantly played with massive fan comping rather than using just the base rules. Something which can't be said about Malifaux, Infinity, Kings of War, Warmachine, Hordes, X-Wing, Armada, Dropfleet Commander, Warhammer Fantasy 8th Edition, etc.


Where's your data coming from? not just from Warseer I hope ;) though maybe that was the intention all along? Players have been comping GW games for years and even at my club they comp historical rule sets, so GW exonerate themselves from any "balance" and competitive debates and lets the community get on with it. I've played a few sandbox MMO over the past decade and that's exactly how they operate, they put the skills in and you build you character how you want and certain players work out the most broken build and go around ganking everyone should the dev's stop building these types of games? because other players get together and build communities of trust and togetherness to counter the gankers, this then creates a depth of immersion other types of games fail to accomplish. Two of the biggest RPG franchises in video games Bethesda's Fallout and Elder Scrolls games do exactly this and for years players have broken the game with certain builds that plough through gameplay, yet for many others playing the game their way is the point of sandbox game.

At the end of the day its just a different type of game and you have to just work out what type of gamer you are and gravitate towards that gaming experience. The incessant debate around the quality of the rules is missing the point for me, play EvE online with its "if your in a fair fight you done something wrong" mantra and see how far you get when talking about balance, the community will just tell you to L2P and man up.

skeptico
07-12-2015, 23:50
Myth: AOS is playable out of the box.
Reality: Hardly anyone plays it without some form of comp, because it's not playable.

When an AoS player says people play it out of the box, and this is the response, it kinda just shows how pointless this has all become. I mean, why bother to talk past each other like this?

On another issue, AoS does have a balancing mechanism - it's actually a very elegant one. The mechanism is that you counter your opponents force as it gets deployed. The limitation of that is that it requires that you have a collection of a certain size and variety. But the mechanism is there.

akai
07-12-2015, 23:52
Myth: AOS is playable out of the box.
Reality: Hardly anyone plays it without some form of comp, because it's not playable.

1. Hardly anyone plays it without some form of comp.
2. So based on your own admittance (1), it is logical to infer that you do believe some people actually do play without some form of comp.
3. If some people are actually playing without some form of comp (by your own admittance), then how is it that they are playing something that is not playable!?

Your reality is very unique.

HelloKitty
08-12-2015, 00:19
then why did they develop a 30-page comp system for it so that it could play more like the dreaded system mastery/tournament games?
Because public events require structure and require give and take. With no points, the events would have 3 players or so. With the comp we have 12.

No one said anything about dreaded. It is possible to not like something without it being dreaded.


Not quite the same, as people played 8th edition for years without pages and pages of fanmade comp.
Which is also 200% false :)

The first six months of 8th edition's release, the internet forums were ablaze with hate for it for introducing random elements like charges into the game, people were ragequitting left and right for warmachine, and all of the big events produced comp packets within a couple months, which were slowly adjusted over the years. While there were uncomped tournaments, all of the big tournaments have had comp packets, some quite extensive, since the beginning of 2010's release of 8th edition.


For the posts about HelloKitty liking narrative play and using Azyr Comp...if the group's "story" revolves only around conflicts of few characters leading large amount of troops, then the Azyr Comp seems to provide structure/guideline to people wanting to fit within the boundaries of the group's "story." It is consistent with what HelloKitty has written before on the "stories" that he wants to participate in.

This is it exactly. The structure for public events. To know what is acceptable and not acceptable. That is why it exists.

Uncomped A.O.S is also big where I am with a certain group of guys. I dont play with them because I find the way they play not fun, but they use the balancing mechanism of counter deployment with their collection. They are having fun. They are playing the game. Erego it is not unplayable, just not something I personally want any part of. Much like I want no part of kings of war or warmachine for the reasons I've already outlined.

Adding point costs to the game made the game fun for me. So I play it. And will continue to play it.

9th Age is a large comp packet of 8th edition. People enjoy it. Thats all that matters.

The point that AoS requires comp is pointless and is as obvious to most of us as saying the sky is blue. The only way that matters is if people are massively against using comp systems, which I do not so do not care if comp is used or not. So Kings of War and PP and XWing etc playable out of the box is as pointless to me as saying the models are different because whether a game is playable out of the box is the last thing that I care about. I care about if the models look good, if the people that are playing it where I am are open to playing the game in a non system-mastery style of play, and if the game is not playable out of the box, if that can be salvaged.

Buddy Bear
08-12-2015, 00:33
When an AoS player says people play it out of the box, and this is the response, it kinda just shows how pointless this has all become. I mean, why bother to talk past each other like this?

Maybe because the vast majority of AOS players I've encountered, including the very same one which you're referring to, almost always play AOS with comp?


On another issue, AoS does have a balancing mechanism - it's actually a very elegant one. The mechanism is that you counter your opponents force as it gets deployed. The limitation of that is that it requires that you have a collection of a certain size and variety. But the mechanism is there.

It's an ineffective and worthless method.

PLAYER 1: I put down Nagash, Supreme Lord of the Undead.

PLAYER 2: I put down Vandus Hammerhand.

PLAYER 1: I put out Arkhan the Black, Mortarch of Sacrament.

PLAYER 2: I put down Sigmarine Chaplain.

PLAYER 1: I put down Mannfred Von Carstein, Mortarch of Night.

PLAYER 2: I put down three flying Sigmarines.

PLAYER 1: I put down Neferata, Mortarch of Blood.

PLAYER 2: I put down three Sigmarines with big hammers.

PLAYER 1: I put down Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon.

PLAYER 2: I put down 10 Sigmarines with shields. I'm out of models.

PLAYER 1: In that case, I put down Ghoul King on Terrorgheist, Necrosphinx, Khemrian Warsphinx, Settra the Imperishable, Vlad Von Carstein, Bone Giant, and Black Coach. And because you outnumber me, I declare a Sudden Death victory objective.

Being able to respond to what the other person puts down doesn't mean you have something of commensurate power, nor does it offer any mechanism to ensure that players stay on a level playing field throughout. As I've said before, the only real balancing mechanism to the rules as written is the size of your wallet. If you can outspend the other guy on big units then you win.

Voss
08-12-2015, 00:44
When an AoS player says people play it out of the box, and this is the response, it kinda just shows how pointless this has all become. I mean, why bother to talk past each other like this?

On another issue, AoS does have a balancing mechanism - it's actually a very elegant one. The mechanism is that you counter your opponents force as it gets deployed. The limitation of that is that it requires that you have a collection of a certain size and variety. But the mechanism is there.

Yes. A well known and ancient mechanism called 'pay to win'


Because comp is trying to wedge the game into a different mindset, that's what comp is for. Mythical Game balance only interests the gamers out there, narrative gamers don't really worry about balance as its reflecting a real or imaginary battle where game balance is not an issue. There are plenty of video's on youtube explaining this, the video's I put up give a primer on mindsets, watch them it might help you understand your own mindset.

Ah. That myth. Real roleplayers narrative players don't care about quality products. Yeah, that is a good one.

Seriqolm
08-12-2015, 00:48
Maybe because the vast majority of AOS players I've encountered, including the very same one which you're referring to, almost always play AOS with comp?



It's an ineffective and worthless method.

PLAYER 1: I put down Nagash, Supreme Lord of the Undead.

PLAYER 2: I put down Vandus Hammerhand.

PLAYER 1: I put out Arkhan the Black, Mortarch of Sacrament.

PLAYER 2: I put down Sigmarine Chaplain.

PLAYER 1: I put down Mannfred Von Carstein, Mortarch of Night.

PLAYER 2: I put down three flying Sigmarines.

PLAYER 1: I put down Neferata, Mortarch of Blood.

PLAYER 2: I put down three Sigmarines with big hammers.

PLAYER 1: I put down Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon.

PLAYER 2: I put down 10 Sigmarines with shields. I'm out of models.

PLAYER 1: In that case, I put down Ghoul King on Terrorgheist, Necrosphinx, Khemrian Warsphinx, Settra the Imperishable, Vlad Von Carstein, Bone Giant, and Black Coach. And because you outnumber me, I declare a Sudden Death victory objective.

Being able to respond to what the other person puts down doesn't mean you have something of commensurate power, nor does it offer any mechanism to ensure that players stay on a level playing field throughout. As I've said before, the only real balancing mechanism to the rules as written is the size of your wallet. If you can outspend the other guy on big units then you win.


So you think Wargaming is all about winning and trashing your opponent turn 1 then?

Voss
08-12-2015, 00:52
So you think Wargaming is all about winning and trashing your opponent turn 1 then?

Ah. The 'Enumerating flaws with examples means you're a horrible person and WAAC player that spits on babies' myth. Always a good one.
Get Rumpelstiltskin on speed dial, we've got some straw to spin into gold.

MohRokTah
08-12-2015, 00:53
So you think Wargaming is all about winning and trashing your opponent turn 1 then?

The objective in any war game is to win. That's why there have been true balancing mechanisms for decades. Even TSR's Chainmail had a point system for balance.

scruffyryan
08-12-2015, 00:55
I doubt it, its a reducto ad absurdum argument. The reality is people getting bent out of shape at feeling a game is unfair or their opponent brought cheese requires much much less input than that. Its an exaggerated statement showcasing how people can have very different ideas of what is fair to play and emphasizing that at the least a nominally thought out point system helps to minimize situations like that.

MagicAngle
08-12-2015, 01:07
On another issue, AoS does have a balancing mechanism - it's actually a very elegant one. The mechanism is that you counter your opponents force as it gets deployed. The limitation of that is that it requires that you have a collection of a certain size and variety. But the mechanism is there.

Uh - now it makes sense!

The reason why there are so many players desperately trying to come up some homebrew rules to make the game moderately playable is because the in-built balance is just too elegant for them! Of course.

Agrimax
08-12-2015, 01:11
You're looking at it a little black and white, I guess there probably are a few people out there who play table top wargames but aren't interested in the models (and use little cardboard tokens to represent models etc) and equally there might be people out the who buy models to paint and sit in a cabinet and never get them out for a game, but in my experience the vast majority do a bit of both, even if they primarily feel more of an affinity for one or the other.

If you have no interest in models at all, table top wargaming would seem an odd hobby to pick up, at the end of the day you can play strategy video games or even strategic board games for much cheaper even than a KoW army will cost you, let alone GW minis.

And yet so many games are fought between two nondescript grey armies...

Time/patience/skill all stop people from getting the nicely painted armies they might want, and I pretty much guarantee of all the GW models out there, only a fraction are painted to any sort of even basic standard. Many aren't painted at all It's an aspirational thing and for many, one that's never achieved. Doesn't mean people aren't interested in modelling, just that it's not their key focus if they want to play games.

Whereas, someone who wants to paint pretty models is likely to do just that. Maybe they like the idea of playing a game with them, maybe not - but if they do want to play a game it's unlikely to be just any old game "because it's there", but one they actually find interesting.

Agrimax
08-12-2015, 01:13
On another issue, AoS does have a balancing mechanism - it's actually a very elegant one. The mechanism is that you counter your opponents force as it gets deployed. The limitation of that is that it requires that you have a collection of a certain size and variety. But the mechanism is there.

Swap the word "elegant" for "cynical" and you're spot on.

Dosiere
08-12-2015, 01:53
This idea of countering during deployment is actually a huge negative, although in a perfect situation yes it does work. I get it, I tried it several times. Some of my best games were actually played like this with no comp or anything just RAW (well, plus measuring from bases cuz... yeah). It rewards the player with the largest collection, and forces you to bring a boatload of miniatures to the club. It is the RAW balancing system it's true, but elegant is not the word I would use to describe it.

Buddy Bear
08-12-2015, 03:36
I doubt it, its a reducto ad absurdum argument. The reality is people getting bent out of shape at feeling a game is unfair or their opponent brought cheese requires much much less input than that. Its an exaggerated statement showcasing how people can have very different ideas of what is fair to play and emphasizing that at the least a nominally thought out point system helps to minimize situations like that.

Exactly. Skeptico claimed that AOS has an elegant balancing mechanism, and I pointed out how absurdly useless that "balancing mechanism" is. Even without going to extremes, let's say I brought the following:


State Troop Detachment
- Empire General (Imperial Lance, Imperial Shield, Stately War Banner, Pegasus)
- 26 Handgunners
- 20 Crossbowmen
- 20 Archers
- 10 Outriders

Brotherhood of Knights
- 20 Reiksguard Knights
- 10 Empire Knights (Cavalry Hammer)
- 6 Demigryph Knights (Lance and Sword)
- 6 Demigryph Knights (Cavalry Halberd)

- Markus Wulfhart
- Master Engineer
- Empire Cannon
- Empire Cannon
- Empire Mortar
- Helblaster Volley Gun
- Steam Tank (Hochland Long Rifle)
- Steam Tank (Hochland Long Rifle)

That's a pretty reasonable force. What's balanced against that? How do you figure out what's balanced against it? Moreover, how do you avoid creating a situation in which an opposing army is not only more powerful than this, but also benefits from Sudden Death due to being a numerically smaller force? This army has 139 models in it, so an army of 102 models or less could benefit from Sudden Death. What if they're Ogres? What if they're Chaos Knights? What if someone plays a lot of large models like those I listed above which, for the purposes of this "elegant balancing mechanism", are valued the same as an Archer or Empire Cannon crew member?

Dosiere
08-12-2015, 04:26
From experience I can tell you buddy bear that is solved by leaving all the crap at home. You bring your characters, the Knights, the DGks for damn sure along with the steam teams, and your artillery. AoS is all about putting everything big on the table. The latest releases are a perfect example of GWs vision for your entire AoS army. Which of course ruins it for people like me who want to play an imperial army, which should include lots of troops. Not to mention AoS is terrible to play using that many miniatures anyway. Not only is it inefficient but it's just boring to use a bunch of peons in this game. People talk about games like KoW being boring but it's got nothing on a bad game Of AoS. It's halfway decent if you restrict yourself to small, elite forces though. The plethora of special rules at least keep you engaged enough to finish the games.

Think about it this way: before we had a system that encouraged us to buy at most two of the big special expensive stuff. The special characters, the hell pits, the steam tanks. It also encouraged/required you to buy multiples of the cheapest and probably least profit ale boxes in the entire line. Must have driven Kirby mad.

AoS encourages you to put down big elite stuff, the kind of models before we referred to as center pieces for your army. It's now the standard troop. The sudden death rules are clearly meant to encourage this idea, punishing players who want to put down large numbers of crap troops, rather than creating any type of balance, which the rule most certainly does not usually. More often than not we would agree to just not use it.

Good, bad? Obviously depends on who you talk to. For me, it's terrible because I want a war game, and having units of troops slugging it out is part of the allure. It also made your centerpiece models actually cool, because your general on a griffon stood out next to 50 state troops. When your entire "army" consists of 3 generals on griffons and 2 steam tanks, what is the point?

For better or worse AoS is nothing more than a vague idea of something to do with your miniatures so you have an excuse to let other people look at how awesome you can paint, or how much money you wasted on GWs latest releases. Don't get me wrong, the spectacle of a fully painted army is fantastic, and a huge reason I love the hobby. Many others and myself enjoy sharing our modeling projects and painting. When it's the only reason or even the primary reason though? No thanks, I'd rather play a real game rather than a glorified screenshot creator. I don't need my ego stroked badly enough to pull out my 4 page ruleset again.

Buddy Bear
08-12-2015, 05:35
Yeah, that's pretty much what I figured. That the only way to really play AOS is to bring an army like this. And while something like this is good for a laugh once or twice...

223545


...that sort of thing is not what I want out of a miniature game. If I wanted to see superheroes battling each other I'd play HeroClix. I liked having massed ranks of troops led by heroes on monsters fighting it out with each other. Battles where the basic halberdier actually mattered, and wasn't actually a hindrance to victory by giving your smaller and more elite opponent a Sudden Death victory condition.

scruffyryan
08-12-2015, 06:34
Myth: the acrimony over the way 8th ended and the AOS ruleset will eventually fade
Fact: people are still complaining about greedo shooting first, so that myth is the triumph of hope over experience.

Voss
08-12-2015, 06:46
Myth: the acrimony over the way 8th ended and the AOS ruleset will eventually fade
Fact: people are still complaining about greedo shooting first, so that myth is the triumph of hope over experience.

Well, yes. Han shooting first is a character defining moment, giving you a memorable impression of the character at the beginning of the film (and setting the stage for the end of the film).
Greedo shooting first tells you nothing at all about the character that matters in the scene, implies that the people pursuing him are incompetent buffons (and therefor unworthy enemies) and says worlds about the editing (if you know about the original scene). For the unfortunate new audience member, the climax of the film is undermined, as is the beginning of the third film.

Similarly, AoS will always be defined as a Greedo Moment. If you look at the Old Warhammer world, it reached a climax with Archaon achieving his destiny. Now on a brand new set of featureless infinite planes devoid of characters that you'd want to root for against him, he gets to try to repeat his destruction of the world with the destruction of the Mortal Realms, which chaos had already conquered in the fuzzy interregnum period. With no meaningful purpose, opposition or character, Archaon is hacking at a straw dummy and missing, for all eternity. He (and thus the setting and thus the game) is simply tragic buffoonery with no hope of resolution or purpose.

Bloodknight
08-12-2015, 07:10
But when a game has people putting out comp systems for it from Day 1, when the majority of its biggest fans seem to only play with it when they're using heavily comped versions of it... that says quite a bit about the quality, or lack thereof, found in that game.

The existence of a comp system doesn't say much either. Turns out the German tournament scene switched over from WFB to KoW, and guess what, they're working on a comp system now because, of course, people needed all of 5 minutes of competitive gaming in the wild to break the game and make it no fun for the participants (as they always do, no matter the system...). :).

Buddy Bear
08-12-2015, 07:28
Tournaments always have a comp system of some kind or another. There's a big, big difference between tournaments having a comp system, though, and damn near every player who plays a game developing their own comp system because the base game is unplayable to them (Especially when those comp systems are so much larger than the base rules. Azyrcomp, for instance, is 30 pages. That's 7 1/2 times the size of the base rules set).

Again, point out where else this is true to such a massive degree with any other game? You won't find it. The majority of people playing Kings of War are playing it straight out of the book. The majority of people playing Warmachine are playing it straight out of the book. The majority of people playing Malifaux are playing it straight out of the book. The majority of people playing X-Wing are playing it straight out of the book. The majority of people playing Infinity are playing it straight out of the book. The majority of people playing Warhammer Fantasy are playing it straight out of the book. The majority of people playing Dropzone Commander are playing it straight out of the book. The majority of people playing Frostgrave are playing it straight out of the book.

Meanwhile, the majority of people playing Age of Sigmar are seemingly playing one out of a thousand comp systems, many of which started to be developed on the very first day it was out. Seriously, look for yourself. People were trying to figure out ways of producing a comp system for it from the very minute the rules dropped. And they weren't made because the goal was to make it into a hyper competitive tournament system. They were making them because most of them didn't think the game was playable straight out of the box. Even many of AOS's biggest fans don't think it's playable straight out of the box. That is a damning indictment.

daftpunkevo
08-12-2015, 07:50
ITT : AoS "myth" and ultra biased opinion somehow stated as fact

Arrahed
08-12-2015, 08:12
At the end of the day its just a different type of game and you have to just work out what type of gamer you are and gravitate towards that gaming experience. The incessant debate around the quality of the rules is missing the point for me, play EvE online with its "if your in a fair fight you done something wrong" mantra and see how far you get when talking about balance, the community will just tell you to L2P and man up.

Having played Eve online for a long time I can confidently say that this is not an appropriate comparison. The game is all about resource management and preparation. The resources being players and their time. There are certain ways to optimized these things by using multiple accounts or buying in-game money with real money so some wealthy players with nothing else to do are a more valuable resource than others. But in the end the game is about making the most out of the resources you have.
And even in that loosely comped system there are rules that ensure that you cannot simply wait until the enemy is asleep to destroy his base.

In AOS there are no resources. Everything is available to everyone. One could argue that the models one owns are some kind of resource but that would make AOS the purest form of pay-to-win.

pox
08-12-2015, 11:43
I have found that in AoS you do tend to bring the bling and leave the yard trash at home. Games can actually be really fun with just light troops, I run an Eshin list with 40-60 night runners, 10-20 gutter runners and assassins. assuming my opponent also brings a majority of basic troops with a few elites it balances pretty well. I don't get to run it a lot though, usually people want to use more rare and elite choices. Either way I haven't used Clanrats or slaves, there's just not any reason to when I have plenty of more viable foot troops.

Claymore
08-12-2015, 13:17
I have found that in AoS you do tend to bring the bling and leave the yard trash at home. Games can actually be really fun with just light troops, I run an Eshin list with 40-60 night runners, 10-20 gutter runners and assassins. assuming my opponent also brings a majority of basic troops with a few elites it balances pretty well. I don't get to run it a lot though, usually people want to use more rare and elite choices. Either way I haven't used Clanrats or slaves, there's just not any reason to when I have plenty of more viable foot troops.

Thats one of the reasons I dropped AOS my common goblin army was pretty much useless against all the bling people where using, put down a goblin unit they put down a grave guard:ETC

It's actually kind of funny one of the early pro-AOS arguments was you'd see units you never saw in 8th you'd see more variety, in fact in my experience there's even less variety than they was before.

Gorthor21
08-12-2015, 13:24
after reading this thread im growing very weary of the word "comp" as much as "narrative". the way people describe it being a definition of how a game is valued based on how players change it to make it fair is just silly.
the biggest myth about age of sigmar is that it was such a downpour on the collective parade that we need to keep coming back to make the same arguments over and over and over. like others have said already its all about personal opinion and we need to come to the realization that the medium of communication isn't going to change opinions if they already are set.

pox
08-12-2015, 14:49
Thats one of the reasons I dropped AOS my common goblin army was pretty much useless against all the bling people where using, put down a goblin unit they put down a grave guard:ETC

It's actually kind of funny one of the early pro-AOS arguments was you'd see units you never saw in 8th you'd see more variety, in fact in my experience there's even less variety than they was before.

I always bring my little Eshin guys just for fighting gobbos and gnoblars and what-nots. weak model skirmish games with clear goals is actually a lot of fun in AoS. sadly you are right, normally its high-end core, 40mm monsters and monstrous creatures.

HelloKitty
08-12-2015, 14:55
I find that people have always brought as much elite to the table as they could get away with, even with point systems. Thats human nature. It also means less models to have to paint.

One of the biggest things revealed in polls over the past five years, and one of the biggest hurdles for recruiting in whfb 8th was simply not many people want to have to field garbage troops if they don't have to... also known as "the core tax". Give people the option to not have to take any of "the core tax" and its not surprising that you see so many games where its nothing but elites.

I myself prefer more historically accurate armies and "the core tax" is a necessity that all armies had to deal with since they make up the bulk of your foces, but I am a minority.

Note: even with comp systems applying point systems, the elite armies are predominantly what you see, so its not just that points are missing, its that there is no mechanism that says "you m ust take this many garbage troops" which was a hurdle to recruitment in 8th.

Arrahed
08-12-2015, 15:15
I find that people have always brought as much elite to the table as they could get away with, even with point systems. Thats human nature. It also means less models to have to paint.

One of the biggest things revealed in polls over the past five years, and one of the biggest hurdles for recruiting in whfb 8th was simply not many people want to have to field garbage troops if they don't have to... also known as "the core tax". Give people the option to not have to take any of "the core tax" and its not surprising that you see so many games where its nothing but elites.

I myself prefer more historically accurate armies and "the core tax" is a necessity that all armies had to deal with since they make up the bulk of your foces, but I am a minority.

Note: even with comp systems applying point systems, the elite armies are predominantly what you see, so its not just that points are missing, its that there is no mechanism that says "you m ust take this many garbage troops" which was a hurdle to recruitment in 8th.

I hear a lot of complaints about the core tax. I don't get it. Why would someone play a mass battle game when he doesn't like mass battle games? There are tons of excellent skirmish games out there for scratching the elite/character itch.

I agree that it is not connected to point values but to army composition as a whole. Point values are just one part of it.

I don't agree that its human nature. My fantasy armies are usually very core-heavy and I know I am not the only one. Of course everyone I know could be an exception but that would be highly unlikely.

pox
08-12-2015, 15:20
I hear ya', my actual Skaven list was almost all core. I ran a Clan Morr list in 7th, (i never played 8th due to life issues) and the backbone of my army was five units of 20 slaves, five units of clanrats at 25,25,30,35,and 42. These were backed up by a block of 42 Stormvermin. (around 300 models for 1,500!) I always had a lot more fun with large troop movement, and found that it was a viable list.

With AoS though there really is no need for slaves, and clanrats are only useful if they have spears.

Wishing
08-12-2015, 15:44
It seems clear to me that saying that AoS is "narrative" is just a way of trying to put words on something that is quite hard to put words on. Hence why it's easy to say that the statement is rubbish, since there is nothing in AoS that specifically encourages storytelling. People don't actually mean narrative in the literary sense.

I think the point that is trying to be expressed is that AoS is trying to be anti-competitive. Which is why so many people think it fails so hard.

By anti-competitive I mean that the players of the game are supposed to approach it not as a contest, but as a cooperative exercise. Like if they were musicians doing a jamming session. We get together to endulge in our shared nerdy hobby. The point is to pretend that our miniatures are fighting. For fun.

Because the miniatures are meant to be fighting though, the competition is there at the core. When the game starts, the players start rolling dice and seeing who wins or loses. If the game didn't have that, the game would have no defined goal, and therefore not have much appeal. That we declare a winner and a loser makes the game accessible as a game.

But the players are not "supposed" to be "themselves" when they are engaged in the competitive part. They are supposed to be in character, roleplaying their army generals. It's the models on the table that are trying to win. Not the players themselves. The players themselves are cooperating. Who wins or loses is not relevant for the jam session. The jam session is successful if the players have a good time.

HelloKitty
08-12-2015, 15:50
I don't agree that its human nature. My fantasy armies are usually very core-heavy and I know I am not the only one. Of course everyone I know could be an exception but that would be highly unlikely.

While I myself use core-heavy armies, I have found in the past twenty years that that was rare and online polls on the topic of should we have to use a "core tax" has shown that a very good chunk of people hated having to use core units and wanted to stick predominantly to elite units.

That Age of Sigmar has opened that to be usable and the vast majority of armies seem to be nothing but elite models shows that it is what a good chunk of people want... to not have to monkey with core non elite models.

Spiney Norman
08-12-2015, 15:51
It seems clear to me that saying that AoS is "narrative" is just a way of trying to put words on something that is quite hard to put words on. Hence why it's easy to say that the statement is rubbish, since there is nothing in AoS that specifically encourages storytelling. People don't actually mean narrative in the literary sense.

I think the point that is trying to be expressed is that AoS is trying to be anti-competitive. Which is why so many people think it fails so hard.

By anti-competitive I mean that the players of the game are supposed to approach it not as a contest, but as a cooperative exercise. Like if they were musicians doing a jamming session. We get together to endulge in our shared nerdy hobby. The point is to pretend that our miniatures are fighting. For fun.

Because the miniatures are meant to be fighting though, the competition is there at the core. When the game starts, the players start rolling dice and seeing who wins or loses. If the game didn't have that, the game would have no defined goal, and therefore not have much appeal. That we declare a winner and a loser makes the game accessible as a game.

But the players are not "supposed" to be "themselves" when they are engaged in the competitive part. They are supposed to be in character, roleplaying their army generals. It's the models on the table that are trying to win. Not the players themselves. The players themselves are cooperating. Who wins or loses is not relevant for the jam session. The jam session is successful if the players have a good time.

I think that's a pretty good summary

Zywus
08-12-2015, 16:12
It seems clear to me that saying that AoS is "narrative" is just a way of trying to put words on something that is quite hard to put words on. Hence why it's easy to say that the statement is rubbish, since there is nothing in AoS that specifically encourages storytelling. People don't actually mean narrative in the literary sense.

I think the point that is trying to be expressed is that AoS is trying to be anti-competitive. Which is why so many people think it fails so hard.

By anti-competitive I mean that the players of the game are supposed to approach it not as a contest, but as a cooperative exercise. Like if they were musicians doing a jamming session. We get together to endulge in our shared nerdy hobby. The point is to pretend that our miniatures are fighting. For fun.

Because the miniatures are meant to be fighting though, the competition is there at the core. When the game starts, the players start rolling dice and seeing who wins or loses. If the game didn't have that, the game would have no defined goal, and therefore not have much appeal. That we declare a winner and a loser makes the game accessible as a game.

But the players are not "supposed" to be "themselves" when they are engaged in the competitive part. They are supposed to be in character, roleplaying their army generals. It's the models on the table that are trying to win. Not the players themselves. The players themselves are cooperating. Who wins or loses is not relevant for the jam session. The jam session is successful if the players have a good time.

I agree that this is probably the best way to approach AoS.
A big problem is that the game don't communicate this in a clear way. From the terminology and the fact that there is a form of balancing mechanism in the core rules (sudden death) one gets the impression that it is a 'regular' wargame. It's rather confusing that you are supposed to mutually design your forces as to not be too incompatible to each other (but the rules don't talk about army deployment as a co-operative experience) and then when the battle has begun, you're supposed to change mindset and command your forces in a non-cooperative manner.

If this is indeed the way GW has intended the game to be played, they really would have benefited from laying it out clearly in 'designers notes' articles. The rules could have suggested the use of a GM for example and advise the players to go into the game with a co-operative story telling mindset.

There really is nothing wrong with co-operative freeform roleplaying games as such. I very much question if there is a sustainable market of people who wish to partake in one that also require modeling and painting lots of expensive miniatures though.

Niall78
08-12-2015, 16:37
Has anyone got a single quote from GW saying this is the type of play AoS is designed to promote?

That GW designed a non-competitive table-top miniatures game that retains winners and losers at the games finish.

Actually now that I think of it a quote from GW explaining the narrative gaming experience would be nice as well.

Otherwise a person might think random posters were making claims for AoS like 'narrative gaming' and 'non-competitive table-top game' that are simply figments of their own imaginations.

Tyranno1
08-12-2015, 16:38
While I myself use core-heavy armies, I have found in the past twenty years that that was rare and online polls on the topic of should we have to use a "core tax" has shown that a very good chunk of people hated having to use core units and wanted to stick predominantly to elite units.

That Age of Sigmar has opened that to be usable and the vast majority of armies seem to be nothing but elite models shows that it is what a good chunk of people want... to not have to monkey with core non elite models.

The fact that a massive chunk of players want nothing to do to AoS says otherwise to "a good chunk" of people wanting "elite only" armies...
Or maybe its more of "be careful what you wish for"? People not wanting the core tax, then realizing why it was there in the first place.


Also. I wonder how many people didnt like Core Taxes, because the models were dreadful and dated?

You got some armies like Beastmen and Dark Elves with a very very good line-up of core unit models. Enough detail to make them different, but still looked good en-mass.

Then you have armies like Chaos Warriors, which have some good ones and some very very dated old ones.

But then you have ones like High Elves with their Monkey-fisted Spearmen. And its easy to see why people would not want to build up a bunch of them.

Niall78
08-12-2015, 17:07
The fact that a massive chunk of players want nothing to do to AoS says otherwise to "a good chunk" of people wanting "elite only" armies...
Or maybe its more of "be careful what you wish for"? People not wanting the core tax, then realizing why it was there in the first place.


Also. I wonder how many people didnt like Core Taxes, because the models were dreadful and dated?


It might just be that lack of updates for some armies coupled with power creep in others and an inability by GW to build an effective points system - and keep it all up to date - led to many 'core tax' units being completely useless on the actual table-top.

2DSick
08-12-2015, 17:31
It might just be that lack of updates for some armies coupled with power creep in others and an inability by GW to build an effective points system - and keep it all up to date - led to many 'core tax' units being completely useless on the actual table-top.


I must agree that the most frustrating thing for me was a complete lack of updates. Not just errata but completely ignoring core factions for two whole editions was not cool.

You'd like to think that from edition to edition, feedback is taken, points are balanced over time but it was the polar opposite. Particularly from 7th onwards. Ulric knows that 7th daemons was a prime example.

That, coupled with undeniable, steadfast, stubborn, rerolling, hordes, random charge ranges and silly magic was what put me off 8th.

I never had anything against core tax. It's what makes an army instead of a warband.

Inquisitor Kallus
08-12-2015, 18:08
Myth: AOS is playable out of the box.


Err, it is. Just use the models it comes with.......

Flipmode
08-12-2015, 18:14
Am I allowed to discuss what game we want to play with my opponent, or is that 'comp'?

Waagh Rider
08-12-2015, 18:47
It's funny to hear the generalisations about types of players going on here. One has to make generalisations to some extent, but I think I throw a spanner into what has been asserted so far.
I was a GW fanboy right up until AOS. I started with 3rd Ed and clung on right through, based a lot on the fact that I had been playing the same game since I was 11 years old. I liked the setting, I liked the minis, and for me WFB was the only game in town. I was heavily invested with armybooks, models etc But I was fed up of losing the game at the 'which armybook did you buy? Oh Dark Elves, ok I'll go home' stage. I wasn't interested in playing tournaments, where my homespun army, based on a combination of models that I liked and also what I thought did well, would lose consistently against Spammy Netlists based on what the latest power combination was.

Should make me ideal fodder for AoS 'narrative play right? Consulting with your opponent on what sort of game you want to spend hard earned time and cash playing? Sounds ideal! But I'm now playing KoW. Because I can turn up to a game and my skill/knowledge + luck allow me a fighting chance to win that game, rather than going through the motions against 40 Witch Elves +Cauldron, and 30 Executioners etc.
Although I have considerably big armies already from GW, I'm also looking to be involved in an ongoing hobby in which I can buy and paint up the new releases, play the scenarios and generally be involved in a community. I'm not a millionaire, so this once again discounts AoS, but KoW is ideal for this. GW have priced me out of AoS - I could play it with my existing armies, but the prices mean I wouldn't be able to add to them without considerable pain.

Added to this, I really enjoyed the Old World setting that was destroyed rather cavalierly by GW and have no interest in this new world of big gold guys (even if I could afford them)
I have no interest in game mastery either, nor in the complexities of game design. I'll quite happily play a narrative campaign or game, and I'm even considering KoW tournaments, providing I feel that the odds aren't stacked against someone who at heart is a casual gamer.

And just to add my twopenneth, IMHO anyone who says KoW is boring really hasn't given it a chance! But this remains JUST MY OPINION.

Folomo
08-12-2015, 18:51
While I myself use core-heavy armies, I have found in the past twenty years that that was rare and online polls on the topic of should we have to use a "core tax" has shown that a very good chunk of people hated having to use core units and wanted to stick predominantly to elite units.

That Age of Sigmar has opened that to be usable and the vast majority of armies seem to be nothing but elite models shows that it is what a good chunk of people want... to not have to monkey with core non elite models.

If no one wanted big units and everyone wanted elite models/center pieces, then KoW would be the last place ex-WHF players would flock to.

It could also mean that people who like to play with elite units also like AoS. Based on pools here, around 20-25% of people who played 8th edition before like AoS now. So the conclusion should be that actually a small part of the people liked that playstyle before.


Am I allowed to discuss what game we want to play with my opponent, or is that 'comp'?
Are you forcing/preventing him to take certain units based on a pre-defined army composition?

HelloKitty
08-12-2015, 19:13
It's funny to hear the generalisations about types of players going on here. One has to make generalisations to some extent, but I think I throw a spanner into what has been asserted so far.
I was a GW fanboy right up until AOS. I started with 3rd Ed and clung on right through, based a lot on the fact that I had been playing the same game since I was 11 years old. I liked the setting, I liked the minis, and for me WFB was the only game in town. I was heavily invested with armybooks, models etc But I was fed up of losing the game at the 'which armybook did you buy? Oh Dark Elves, ok I'll go home' stage. I wasn't interested in playing tournaments, where my homespun army, based on a combination of models that I liked and also what I thought did well, would lose consistently against Spammy Netlists based on what the latest power combination was.

Should make me ideal fodder for AoS 'narrative play right? Consulting with your opponent on what sort of game you want to spend hard earned time and cash playing? Sounds ideal! But I'm now playing KoW. Because I can turn up to a game and my skill/knowledge + luck allow me a fighting chance to win that game, rather than going through the motions against 40 Witch Elves +Cauldron, and 30 Executioners etc.
Although I have considerably big armies already from GW, I'm also looking to be involved in an ongoing hobby in which I can buy and paint up the new releases, play the scenarios and generally be involved in a community. I'm not a millionaire, so this once again discounts AoS, but KoW is ideal for this. GW have priced me out of AoS - I could play it with my existing armies, but the prices mean I wouldn't be able to add to them without considerable pain.

Added to this, I really enjoyed the Old World setting that was destroyed rather cavalierly by GW and have no interest in this new world of big gold guys (even if I could afford them)
I have no interest in game mastery either, nor in the complexities of game design. I'll quite happily play a narrative campaign or game, and I'm even considering KoW tournaments, providing I feel that the odds aren't stacked against someone who at heart is a casual gamer.

And just to add my twopenneth, IMHO anyone who says KoW is boring really hasn't given it a chance! But this remains JUST MY OPINION.

I tried kings of wAr twice. Its still boring to me. Boring being a catch all phrase for not engaged, not interested, and put off by some of the mechanics and very generalized nature of spellcasting etc as well as static tactics like fixed charge distance.

In the two games ive played and the dozen games ive wAtched the game plays very much like 7th only with the over generalized spells etc making it more like chess.

15 years ago id have loved it. That me changed around 2007 when i sold my whfb collection off because 7th burned me out and kow plays very much like its successor.

Its the same as people not playing aos because they want rank bonuses etc. they dont need to play aos to know its not going to give them what they want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EmperorNorton
08-12-2015, 19:16
It seems clear to me that saying that AoS is "narrative" is just a way of trying to put words on something that is quite hard to put words on. Hence why it's easy to say that the statement is rubbish, since there is nothing in AoS that specifically encourages storytelling. People don't actually mean narrative in the literary sense.

I think the point that is trying to be expressed is that AoS is trying to be anti-competitive. Which is why so many people think it fails so hard.

By anti-competitive I mean that the players of the game are supposed to approach it not as a contest, but as a cooperative exercise. Like if they were musicians doing a jamming session. We get together to endulge in our shared nerdy hobby. The point is to pretend that our miniatures are fighting. For fun.

Because the miniatures are meant to be fighting though, the competition is there at the core. When the game starts, the players start rolling dice and seeing who wins or loses. If the game didn't have that, the game would have no defined goal, and therefore not have much appeal. That we declare a winner and a loser makes the game accessible as a game.

But the players are not "supposed" to be "themselves" when they are engaged in the competitive part. They are supposed to be in character, roleplaying their army generals. It's the models on the table that are trying to win. Not the players themselves. The players themselves are cooperating. Who wins or loses is not relevant for the jam session. The jam session is successful if the players have a good time.

So what you are saying is that it's not a game but a performance piece masquerading as a game.

A mystery why it's not flying off the shelves.

HelloKitty
08-12-2015, 19:16
If no one wanted big units and everyone wanted elite models/center pieces, then KoW would be the last place ex-WHF players would flock to.

It could also mean that people who like to play with elite units also like AoS. Based on pools here, around 20-25% of people who played 8th edition before like AoS now. So the conclusion should be that actually a small part of the people liked that playstyle before.


Are you forcing/preventing him to take certain units based on a pre-defined army composition?

That would be true if there were viable options to choose from. The only official rank and file fantasy wargame that has a company backing it is kings of war. The people who predominantly wNt non core also have to contend with there being only one r&f game on the market.

Now lets see another r&f game come out with no limit on elites that specifically targets competitive players and with core troopers in the game as well properly pointed and lets see what happens.

Id be very curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2DSick
08-12-2015, 19:57
HK - Fixed charge ranges does not equate to static tactics. I honestly fond that a laughable statement. Random charge range ruined WHFB for me.

And one for Wishlist. If it's a cooperative excersice, why is there a win lose criteria?

Arrahed
08-12-2015, 20:00
That would be true if there were viable options to choose from. The only official rank and file fantasy wargame that has a company backing it is kings of war. The people who predominantly wNt non core also have to contend with there being only one r&f game on the market.

Now lets see another r&f game come out with no limit on elites that specifically targets competitive players and with core troopers in the game as well properly pointed and lets see what happens.

Id be very curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't know many details about it but Warthrone is also a rank&file system supported by a company (Avatars of War).
If I'm not mistaken it is a reinterpretation of one of the earlier WFB editions were you had multiple formations to chose from, distinction of heroes and commanders and stuff like that. It also has random charge distances. So it might be for you :)
I think its also from an ex-GW employee but don't ask me who. I am terrible with names.

Pojko
08-12-2015, 20:13
That would be true if there were viable options to choose from. The only official rank and file fantasy wargame that has a company backing it is kings of war. The people who predominantly wNt non core also have to contend with there being only one r&f game on the market.

Now lets see another r&f game come out with no limit on elites that specifically targets competitive players and with core troopers in the game as well properly pointed and lets see what happens.

Id be very curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well that's what Warhammer was prior to 6th edition, and 40K prior to 3rd edition. The only limiter was that you had to spend 25%+ on regiments/squads. And then you could spend up to 25% on monsters, 25% warmachines, 50% heroes, etc. It worked back then. If a High Elf player wanted his army to consist of Phoenix Guard, Swordmasters, Shadow Warriors and Silver Helms it was fine. But things like Spearmen and Archers were cheaper than these elites, and justified them being used instead.

And Warhammer did just fine in tournaments and competitive play back then, as well as casual and narrative gaming. Campaign packs like Circle of Blood and Grudge of Drong were plentiful, and even more narrative scenarios were in White Dwarf. GW actually put effort into things like this back in the day.

Only with the introduction of 6th edition did the whole core/special/rare thing come out, where this elf player was now forced to buy archers and spearmen. So it seems to me the perfect compromise would be to just go back to regiments as a whole, rather than three categories of them. And if they're super powerful/rare, just put a 0-1 limit on them, like some things in 5th edition had.

Arrahed
08-12-2015, 20:23
Well that's what Warhammer was prior to 6th edition, and 40K prior to 3rd edition. The only limiter was that you had to spend 25%+ on regiments/squads. And then you could spend up to 25% on monsters, 25% warmachines, 50% heroes, etc. It worked back then. If a High Elf player wanted his army to consist of Phoenix Guard, Swordmasters, Shadow Warriors and Silver Helms it was fine. But things like Spearmen and Archers were cheaper than these elites, and justified them being used instead.

And Warhammer did just fine in tournaments and competitive play back then, as well as casual and narrative gaming. Campaign packs like Circle of Blood and Grudge of Drong were plentiful, and even more narrative scenarios were in White Dwarf. GW actually put effort into things like this back in the day.

Only with the introduction of 6th edition did the whole core/special/rare thing come out, where this elf player was now forced to buy archers and spearmen. So it seems to me the perfect compromise would be to just go back to regiments as a whole, rather than three categories of them. And if they're super powerful/rare, just put a 0-1 limit on them, like some things in 5th edition had.
Didn't 6th edition work the same way? No one forced you to take spear men. Silver helmets were core troops as well.

HelloKitty
08-12-2015, 20:32
HK - Fixed charge ranges does not equate to static tactics. I honestly fond that a laughable statement. Random charge range ruined WHFB for me.

And one for Wishlist. If it's a cooperative excersice, why is there a win lose criteria?

I guess that depends on how you define static tactics, rude personal jab aside. A static tactic to me is a tactic that always works. Always charging 8" is to me a static tactic because you know it will always work if you are 8" in or less. You never have to plan for failure, because it will always work, which is why the ridiculous 1/8" shuffle was such a thing in 6th and 7th edition.

Random charges are what brought me back to the game because I got tired of all my games being for the most part exactly the same flow and layout every single time and it introduced an element where you had to react instead of just follow a script every game, which was largely how the many many 6th and 7th edition games I played seemed. We had workshops on how to guess ranges, most of my tournament group could guess within an inch across a standard gaming table and be right every single time so failing charges was not something that we had happen to us often save for when the target fled and the other target fled, which was part of the game.


Well that's what Warhammer was prior to 6th edition

Right - we started in 5th edition and you are correct, we never used normal rank and file in 5th either and they weren't commonly seen at the GW Grand Tournaments either other than some exceptions like skeletons which were conjured.

It was indeed 6th that brought about the "core tax" by having a core troop that was basically usually the mathematically worst soldiers in your list (usually) that people never really took before they had to. I loved 6th for that because it made armies seem more "real" than the super hero combination that 5th edition revolved around (my chaos army in 5th edition was 8 - 12 models)

Dosiere
08-12-2015, 21:06
That would be true if there were viable options to choose from. The only official rank and file fantasy wargame that has a company backing it is kings of war. The people who predominantly wNt non core also have to contend with there being only one r&f game on the market.

Now lets see another r&f game come out with no limit on elites that specifically targets competitive players and with core troopers in the game as well properly pointed and lets see what happens.

Id be very curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's possible I am not understanding, but KoW doesn't have any restrictions on core/special/rare/elites etc... You don't have to take a unit of skeletons just to take a unit of grave guard for example. You can just use the more elite option. Essentially it removes the core tax, but replaces it with the necessity to have a certain number of rank n file units. You can't have an army of just skeleton catapults for example, you have to take a rank n file for every one of those you want. But again that rank n file unit can be about anything in the list. It's actually a great answer to those who wanted more freedom in list design but wanted it to remain a war game between armies. I'm pretty sure it's explained in the free rules you can download.

Buddy Bear
08-12-2015, 21:16
Yes, army construction is based around unit size, not unit type. 1 Regiment allows you to take up to 2 Troop units and 1 Hero, Monster, OR War Engine. 1 Horde allows you to take up to 4 Troop units, 1 Hero, 1 Monster, and 1 War Machine. So for my Undead, I can take a Horde of Werewolves, which is six, and that'll allow me to take a Vampire Lord, Balefire Catapult, and a Troop of Wraiths, a Troop of Mummies, a Troop of Skeleton Archers, and a Troop of Revenants.

I also like that characters aren't mandatory. So if you want your commander to be the "lead from behind, stays at headquarters" type who doesn't appear personally on the battlefield, you can do that, too.

Zywus
08-12-2015, 21:55
Indeed. KoW's armybuilding system allow for armies made up of nothing by elite units.

For roughly 1000 points, you could take a Vampire lord on a dragon and 20 soul reaver vampire knights (21 models);
Or you could take huge blocks of goblins; over 300 if the little blighters, and still have a few points left for a character or war machine.

IMO, the units are pointed well enough that none of those routes are probably very effective, thereby rewarding (but not forcing) you for taking a balanced army.* Just like it should be.



*I'm not entirely convinced that a balanced army is nessecarily the best and I'm not a big enough Mantic fanboy to claim that flyers aren't probably at least slightly undercosted. Any gaps in efficiency between armies is really not close to being an issue when compared to pretty much any Warhammer edition I've experienced.

GrandmasterWang
09-12-2015, 00:41
1. Hardly anyone plays it without some form of comp.
2. So based on your own admittance (1), it is logical to infer that you do believe some people actually do play without some form of comp.
3. If some people are actually playing without some form of comp (by your own admittance), then how is it that they are playing something that is not playable!?

Your reality is very unique.
Great rebuttal!

Logic ftw!

Ho ho ho.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Buddy Bear
09-12-2015, 01:16
Err... yeah, I am saying some people play it uncomped. Congratulations! You pointed out something I have no problem admitting. I guess neither of you have ever heard the phrase "there's no accounting for taste", though? There'll always be people willing to play terrible games. The existence of people willing to play a terrible game, however, doesn't somehow make it a good game. Plenty of people play the card game War, but that doesn't mean that that game is particularly good or has any tactical depth to it.

But hey, feel free to point out how a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very tiny minority of AOS's already small playerbase actually plays with the game without any comp or house rules. It's pretty funny seeing how desperate the AOS defense has become, though, given that claiming that 0.1% of AOS's playerbase plays the game uncomped is now considered a win for the Pro-AOS argument. :D

MohRokTah
09-12-2015, 02:39
I find the most common comp for AoS is measuring from the base instead of the model. If two players do nothing more than that, they are still playing a comped version.

Buddy Bear
09-12-2015, 02:44
I find the most common comp for AoS is measuring from the base instead of the model. If two players do nothing more than that, they are still playing a comped version.

Yep. You can never say for certain but, given the rules, it's entirely possible that no one is actually playing with the rules as written. At least not beyond their first handful of games. If they're not moving their models so that no part of the model moves further than the maximum movement rate, then they're playing a house ruled game. If they're measuring base-to-base rather than model-to-model then they're playing a house ruled game. Nevermind all the people playing with wound limits, Azyrcomp, limiting force selection to a single faction rather than whatever you like, no shooting in and out of melee combat, etc.

Point is, if the game were so playable, then why is it that the vast majority of people playing it, including its biggest fans, change the way it plays?

Voss
09-12-2015, 02:55
It seems clear to me that saying that AoS is "narrative" is just a way of trying to put words on something that is quite hard to put words on. Hence why it's easy to say that the statement is rubbish, since there is nothing in AoS that specifically encourages storytelling. People don't actually mean narrative in the literary sense.

I think the point that is trying to be expressed is that AoS is trying to be anti-competitive. Which is why so many people think it fails so hard.

By anti-competitive I mean that the players of the game are supposed to approach it not as a contest, but as a cooperative exercise. Like if they were musicians doing a jamming session. We get together to endulge in our shared nerdy hobby. The point is to pretend that our miniatures are fighting. For fun.

Because the miniatures are meant to be fighting though, the competition is there at the core. When the game starts, the players start rolling dice and seeing who wins or loses. If the game didn't have that, the game would have no defined goal, and therefore not have much appeal. That we declare a winner and a loser makes the game accessible as a game.

But the players are not "supposed" to be "themselves" when they are engaged in the competitive part. They are supposed to be in character, roleplaying their army generals. It's the models on the table that are trying to win. Not the players themselves. The players themselves are cooperating. Who wins or loses is not relevant for the jam session. The jam session is successful if the players have a good time.

That strikes me as a load of nonsense, honestly. Narrative isn't a hard concept, and the idea that AoS is anti-competitive and not a game, and in character gibberish seems obviously wrong on first principles, given that the game rules tell you to pick a model to be your general. The general is not the player, role playing or not. The rules very blatantly address the players as players competing in a game where the objective is to win. The armies are referred to as models, and players attempt to achieve victory.

There isn't a drop of cooperative narrativium in the basic game rules. Players are told to get their models out and crush their enemies. Full stop.

And keep in mind that this is far, far more in line with the openly stated goals of the company, which is to sell models as they are the only thing that matters. And echoed again in the game rules- the army is selected from the player's model collection

scruffyryan
09-12-2015, 03:33
HK - Fixed charge ranges does not equate to static tactics. I honestly fond that a laughable statement. Random charge range ruined WHFB for me.

And one for Wishlist. If it's a cooperative excersice, why is there a win lose criteria?

Fixed charge ranges work when you don't get to measure anything until a declaration, the moment they changed the rules to allow limitless measurement, artillery became very strong, and fixed charge ranges became unfeasable in game.

Holier Than Thou
09-12-2015, 10:59
Err... yeah, I am saying some people play it uncomped. Congratulations! You pointed out something I have no problem admitting. I guess neither of you have ever heard the phrase "there's no accounting for taste", though? There'll always be people willing to play terrible games. The existence of people willing to play a terrible game, however, doesn't somehow make it a good game. Plenty of people play the card game War, but that doesn't mean that that game is particularly good or has any tactical depth to it.

But hey, feel free to point out how a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very tiny minority of AOS's already small playerbase actually plays with the game without any comp or house rules. It's pretty funny seeing how desperate the AOS defense has become, though, given that claiming that 0.1% of AOS's playerbase plays the game uncomped is now considered a win for the Pro-AOS argument. :D

They'll take any win they can. Ironic since winning's apparently not important in Age of Sigmar. ;)

Buddy Bear
09-12-2015, 11:02
They'll take any win they can. Ironic since winning's apparently not important in Age of Sigmar. ;)

I feel like we're forging a narrative in this thread. :D

Allen
09-12-2015, 12:01
A quick reality check so I can better understand the kind of discussion we're having: does anyone here have any hard data on all the topics we're covering? Like, for example, data on how many people play AoS with or without comp packs, how many people are part of the already small AoS fanbase (cit.) and so on.

Just to understand, you know, if we're just making stuff up on the fly or if we're actually discussing seriously about those things.

Yowzo
09-12-2015, 12:12
A quick reality check so I can better understand the kind of discussion we're having: does anyone here have any hard data on all the topics we're covering? Like, for example, data on how many people play AoS with or without comp packs, how many people are part of the already small AoS fanbase (cit.) and so on.

If wargaming was a sensitive issue there would be serious polls on the subject.

But since it's a small niche hobby and there are huge regional variations, everyone speaks about whatever his group/city/FLGS/twitter feed/tournament circuit does.

Niall78
09-12-2015, 12:17
Like I asked before :

Does anyone have any quotes from GW that AoS was intended to be a "narrative" game?

Does anyone have any quotes from GW that AoS was supposed to be a 'non-competitive' table-top war-game?

If not both arguments can be dumped in the myth section for AoS.

Nothing I've read in the free downloads leads me to believe that GW intended either style of play for AoS. Lets have some proof they did intend these play-styles and they aren't a creation of a few fans over active imaginations. The blurb describing a game is usually on the first page of its rule book.

Here's that blurb on page two of the Star Wars Armada rules : Star Wars: Armada a competitive game of space warfare for two players.

Where in AoS does it describe itself as a 'narrative' or 'non-competitive' game?

Denny
09-12-2015, 12:43
A quick reality check so I can better understand the kind of discussion we're having: does anyone here have any hard data on all the topics we're covering?

No.


Like, for example, data on how many people play AoS with or without comp packs, how many people are part of the already small AoS fanbase (cit.) and so on.

No.


Just to understand, you know, if we're just making stuff up on the fly or if we're actually discussing seriously about those things.

What we lack in raw data we can more than compensate for by having really strong gut feelings. I, for example, feel that AoS is probably not doing as well as Fantasy, but better than its harshest critics claim. I don't have 'facts' or 'evidence' to support my view, but the gut feeling is very strong.

. . . unless I just have gas . . .

Niall78
09-12-2015, 12:44
Interesting exchange on the 'AoS and other issues' thread in GW general :


I've never played in a WFB tournament in my entire life. I mainly play linked scenarios and campaigns with a tight war-gaming group. I'm pretty vocal about the lack of balance. Frankly I think it is a mess which makes both scenario and campaign games impossible to plan and execute.

As for the fabled 'casual gamer' - they are playing games like Ticket to Ride. Actual casual games you can play out of the box in minutes, take a few turns to learn and can be played in 30-60 minutes. Not table-top war games where they've to invest hundreds if not thousands of pounds in miniatures, paints, boards and scenery and then spend countless man-hours making, basing and painting models and scenery. There's nothing casual about table-top war-games - not in price, time commitment, learning curve or new player introduction.



Ironically, what Jervis describes as "casual" is actually the reserve of pretty experienced gamers. People who have the time to plan out campaigns, to work out scenarios and have a reasonable number of friends with similar attitudes and experience. The trouble is that such gamers take a lot of experience to reach that level. 2 kids looking to expand AoS beyond what is included in the box (or even play a different army) would very quickly find their games becoming lopsided. In GW's ideal world this would probably lead to an arms race with each playing investing in more new models. In practice it is more likely to cause one (or possibly both players) to become disappointed and simply quit.

What Jervis totally misses is that you cannot play free-form games out of the box and consistently have a satisfying experience unless you know what you are doing.

Jervis mentions that he is a cycler. What he is doing is the gaming equivalent of lamenting the existence of training wheels, knee/elbow pads and bicycle helmets. Why can't people just get on bikes, ride and have fun? That is fine once you have learned to ride but you need the ""training wheels" of points and balanced scenarios while you learn to play. Even once you are a veteran, taking the training wheels off requires finding a a group of like-minded people.

If I am lucky, I get to play once or twice a month as I have a family. As a result, I would rather spend my time playing rather than trying to work out if my latest scenario is likely to be fun for either side. If we all played games every day like Jervis, maybe more of us would be happier to go off-piste. As it stands, lack of balance and structure is a hindrance to a satisfying game rather than an aid.



Pretty much. I meet up with a group of friends roughly each fortnight for a night of board and card games. Things like Ticket to Ride, Forbidden Desert, Snake Oil etc. These are casual players.

We tried to set up a game of Arkham Horror one night and it was a disaster. Anyone who has played that game knows it requires a fair amount of concentration and time to get through a game. It requires strategic thinking and an ability to adapt and plan ahead. None of which make for easy, casual fun. Its not that its a bad game, its one of my favourites, its just not an appropriate game for an evening with friends where you want to catch up, chat and mess around.

The idea that warhammer has "casual" gamers is laughable. I loved Warhammer because it offered something I cant get from those casual games but if people were actually dropping that kind of money on warhammer for the same experience you could get from a game of Carcassonne then they are incredibly foolish or very well off.


I think we can also add 'casual game' to the myths section of AoS. Another made up smokescreen to cover a very sub-par game.

Allen
09-12-2015, 12:53
But since it's a small niche hobby and there are huge regional variations, everyone speaks about whatever his group/city/FLGS/twitter feed/tournament circuit does.


What we lack in raw data we can more than compensate for by having really strong gut feelings. I, for example, feel that AoS is probably not doing as well as Fantasy, but better than its harshest critics claim. I don't have 'facts' or 'evidence' to support my view, but the gut feeling is very strong.


And that means (I assume) everyone take his/her very local, very anecdoctal, very limited experiences and generalize them on the whole wargaming population.
Which is a very elaborate way to say we're just making stuff up pretending that since it's true for us then it's true for everyone everywhere forever and ever.

Yeah, as I suspected reading 7+ pages of this thread (and many, many more pages on other ones). All this considered, could we at least try to avoid confrontational discussions and/or deeply biased stances? Clearly a lot of people are making stuff up just to score a point in the debate reporting their local experience with AoS. No need to sneer at fellow posters or derail the discussion trying to steer it on another "AoS is really crap and I'll show you why". Even if I don't think the OP made a great show with his/her AoS defence, an unbiased and collaborative thread about AoS myths (debunked or confirmed, both are equally valid points) would be EXTREMELY useful in the current hostile environment in this and many other boards. Please don't derail the thread, it has potential.

Yowzo
09-12-2015, 13:00
And that means (I assume) everyone take his/her very local, very anecdoctal, very limited experiences and generalize them on the whole wargaming population.
Which is a very elaborate way to say we're just making stuff up pretending that since it's true for us then it's true for everyone everywhere forever and ever.

Welcome to the Internet.

Denny
09-12-2015, 14:01
Just to clarify my earlier position: it turns out I did have gas.

pox
09-12-2015, 14:56
Just to clarify my earlier position: it turns out I did have gas.

I can't stop laughing at this, well timed!

I made a pretty massive effort post in another thread on Dakka, and I think it's relevant to this discussion.

I want to point out that I do in fact play AoS, and I went through the grief of losing WHFB. (I have 13,000 points of painted Skaven, over 800 models and all my stories and characters are entrenched in the old lore.) I missed 8th due to life reasons, and got back into 40k halfway through AoS. I was waiting for AoS to get back into fantasy. For various reasons I only really have access to a GW store, so if I want to play something other then 40k it's (for me at least) the only game in town. I feel there is potential to AoS, and have made a few threads that were solely about what I like about the game, what works, and how to get more out of the game. I do enjoy playing it. In other words I play the game and will continue to do so, yet I recognize some of the inherent flaws and seek methods to diminish them. I'm not sure any of these things are "myths" or not to be dispelled or not, it is just a collection of things I've read and thought about.

The way I see it, AoS has problems because it's just the perfect storm of things both in and out of GW. these are why I think it is on life support in no particular order.

KoW had just enough time out to be poised to take customers who wanted to keep playing a massed fantasy battle.
Current concepts of crowd sourcing and social media in general make it not only possible to both write and play test rules with thousands of people across several countries, but to also make them adapt to any new model from any manufacturer. This makes 9th Age not only possible, but a potential framework to keep themselves proped up. (working in conjunction with model makers to release rules for models in development.)

for the non-massed crowds, there is WM/H for extreme tactical rules, and Frostgrave for a more loose experience. (along with Infinity, Malifaux, and a million kickstarters. Not to mention Osprey seems to crank out books like they are worried that print is dying.)

Lack of communication on what was going to be released and when. This would have been a perfect time for GW to issue a letter of intent to players, and let them know what the plan over the next 12 months was going to be. A perfect example is if you like CHoas and picked up the Battletome for Khorne, just to learn that Archaon was coming and would have prefered an undivided list.

Too much focus on the Stormcast Eternals. They got a full army release, while nothing has really come out for any other army aside from Khorne. (I am aware there have been re-pack releases for Sylvaneth, Skaven, and Seraphon but these recived no new models.) I feel it should have dropped with two boxed sets, with two armies in each for for armies total. Skaven and Sylvaneth would have made a great box, they are even shown fighting in the realm of life.

Introducing an entire new realm in which to fight, with sparse details about the nuts and bolts of how life works in Azyrheim or anywhere. Across many novels, three giant sourcebooks, and three army books I still have no clear idea who is doing what and why aside from a Valhalla-esque "eternal war." There is more nuts and bolts information and world building in a single army book form last edition then has been released for AoS so far. Pick up any army book and you learn where they live, who they hunt, who hunts them, motivations, key movers and shakers, pivital battles both won and lost, and how that faction lives.

Loose rules with no errata or FAQ, game breaking warscroll combos, unlimited summoning, fast movement, huge charge radius, and no guide for how to build the army.

Bait and switch with the free rules. The point of free rules was hammered in time and time again by GW, until you find that "out of the box" playing really only works with scenarios. They are either in 80 dollar books which only have a few, or micro-transactions from the app. Battle formations are also treated the same way.

Cost of miniatures. Not only on an individual basis, but going to the website has packages ranging from 300.00-1,500.00 I don't think that looks good to potential new players.

Unclear message to long beards. I think the message could have been handled better. the con showing was pretty sparse, and the rumor that one rep stated that the comedy rules were to make fun of older players was a bad idea. Most older players want to know where their army is in the Realms, or if they are even going to be supported. (As a personal aside I lucked out in this category, I play Skaven. I could not imagine if I played Empire, Brettonia, any Elf Army, or Dwarfs.)

Difficulty playing pick-up games. This usually starts with what a guy in my shop calls the "negotiation phase" of the game. When I go to play, I have to find out how much they brought, what comps they might want to use, what scenario we want to play, how are we going to deploy, and if there are any rules we are not going to use and any that might need to be added
Clear intent what kind of game it is. I feel like it's being pushed as a wargame, when a RPG-style moniker would probably be better served. I've found WAY more traction teaching AoS to tabletop RPG players then I have to wargamers.

Not suited for large public gatherings. GW no longer holds Gamesdays or Grand Tournaments, and AoS is entirely unfit for a competition tournament. It also doesn't have an Apocalypse element, nor does it really work with more then four players.

Hatred of AoS. I add this one because hate for AoS has reached the pitch where it is a clear point of contention working against it. At my local GW a local whale who spends easily 500 a month on product bashes AoS constantly. Not enough to warrant getting tossed, he just grumbles a lot even while playing. New players in general pick up that 40K is the way to go. I've even gotten some good-natured ribbing for playing AoS, which is not so healthy for the game while I'm playing someone that's new to wargaming. All that takes place at an actual GW store with a shopkeep who has no issues telling people to badmouth GW elsewhere and not to discuss other game properties in front of new customers.

Hatred of AoS. I make this point twice. It has gotten to the point where you need to brace yourself before talking about AoS, and I don't mean just on forums. I post on SA, Warseer, and Dakka. Dakka is by far the friendliest to AoS, and even there its not all that friendly. I travel a lot for work and I've learned to not even ask new shops I visit about AoS. not only do they have to feel they have to defend their position to sell or not to sell it, invariably anyone else in the store chimes in and it's obvious that the topic is sensitive. Hell at another local shop I understand the owner has instituted a "no comment" rule on anyone in the store while an AoS game is taking place. He started the rule becuase people would be trying to play AoS and the discussion on the merits of the game would reach an unsavory pitch. I play AoS, I understand it's flaws, but I don't think it should get the sheer animosity it brings.

Battle of Calth. This is the best "bang for your buck" army starter I've seen since the first 30 marine tac box. for 150 dollars you have an army of 38 miniatures that is instantly usable in 40k for around 1,000 points. it fulfills all the basic force organization chart needs, and if you buy two you can field a number of 40k formations. I know its also anecdotal, but it had the exact opposite effect of AoS on the boards, people talking about it flying off the shelf and how many boxes they were gonna purchase. If I were a betting man, I would bet that Battle of Calth will have outsold AoS starter boxes by christmas if it hasn't already. If I was new to the game, I think I would choose 40K over fantasy even if I preferred wizards and dragons, assuming I hung out in a game store for a few hours.

GW drops games that don't match their internal quotas. No matter how much it is or isn't selling, if they dropped WHFB because it wasn't not making enough profit then AoS will need to exceed WHFB sales. If they do not meet the internal sales quotas laid out by the company, then it will either be dropped or changed. Rumors are flying about all the stuff they have in the pipeline for AoS, and I would think they would have a clear arc of what they are releasing no matter what, say one or two years. Once that is done they will evaluate. I think the only thing that would cause a sudden shift was if AoS was a complete disaster, and of course we have no way of knowing if that has happened.


These are just my thoughts. Again, I play AoS and I do look for ways to constantly improve it without moving into comp territory. I wrote this in response to the clear thread title. I do feel like AoS has a lot of potential and there are some facets to it that no other game has really tapped. GW is gambling on something that is so fantastically different then the norm, that I can't help but want to see how it ends. The downside to it being so entirely beyond the pale is that I just don't know if it will survive without some drastic changes either within the company or with the outside factors. (9th age and KoW continuing to prop up fantasy sales due to the need for figures, that sort of thing.)

NoobLord
09-12-2015, 15:24
...lots of words...

You make too much sense. Are you sure you are posting on the right forum?

The only thing I would take issue with is Betrayal at Calth being the best bang for your buck army starter unless you are only considering GW products.

HelloKitty
09-12-2015, 15:32
Those are all fair comments Pox. Thank you for posting.

Voss
09-12-2015, 15:35
I actually think AoS should be the subject of more animosity than it gets. The knock on effects of a game this bad can cause (and I suspect has caused) problems for the entire industry. The LGS has less wargamers in the store, so they're shrinking both stock and play space in favor of things that actually sell (mostly CCGs). There were 6 wargaming tables in the local store two weeks ago, now they're are only 4, with the former space taken up by folding tables and chairs.


I also think it sends a very clear message to 'longbeards.' Get out, get out now, or GW will stab your cat.

Denny
09-12-2015, 15:41
I actually think AoS should be the subject of more animosity than it gets.

I'm trying to process how this would work . . .

pox
09-12-2015, 15:46
I actually think AoS should be the subject of more animosity than it gets. The knock on effects of a game this bad can cause (and I suspect has caused) problems for the entire industry. The LGS has less wargamers in the store, so they're shrinking both stock and play space in favor of things that actually sell (mostly CCGs). There were 6 wargaming tables in the local store two weeks ago, now they're are only 4, with the former space taken up by folding tables and chairs.


I also think it sends a very clear message to 'longbeards.' Get out, get out now, or GW will stab your cat.

I think I get what you're saying, that AoS failing is bringing down wargaming in general? I'm not sure that could be quantified, as GW is the only publicly traded company, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that other games and game companies that produce Wargames are seeing an upswing in customers and sales.

The problem with animosity towards AoS is it easily becomes animosity towards players who play AoS. This is spearheaded by people who post vitriolic statements about the quality of a PLAYER who would play AoS, instead of the quality OF AoS.

Allen
09-12-2015, 16:02
I actually think AoS should be the subject of more animosity than it gets. The knock on effects of a game this bad can cause (and I suspect has caused) problems for the entire industry

You're mixing up the wargaming industry (as is, companies that produce and possibly sell miniatures and rule systems) with


The LGS has less wargamers in the store, so they're shrinking both stock and play space in favor of things that actually sell

the infrastructure and/or secondary market that is tied to wargaming (as is, brick&mortar/online stores and gaming clubs).
I agree with you, many clubs and stores relied pretty heavily on GW products to attract customers or hobbists...and obviously any kind of GW product "not delivering" or "not being interesting enough" could potentially cause them a lot of problems. But clubs and stores/retailers are NOT the wargaming industry. Companies producing miniatures and rule systems are the wargaming industry, and while I agree that GW is the heavyweight of sci-fi/fantasy wargaming their problems remain inside their corporate structure - companies like Warlord, Osprey and many others (both small and big, young or well established) are not going to suffer some kind of contagion effect and suffer the same problems.



I also think it sends a very clear message to 'longbeards.' Get out, get out now, or GW will stab your cat.

I was under the impression that the tinfoil hats veterans on the web decyphered that GW message decades ago. Hardly new stuff, as far as I know.

2DSick
09-12-2015, 16:03
I think I get what you're saying, that AoS failing is bringing down wargaming in general? I'm not sure that could be quantified, as GW is the only publicly traded company, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that other games and game companies that produce Wargames are seeing an upswing in customers and sales.

The problem with animosity towards AoS is it easily becomes animosity towards players who play AoS. This is spearheaded by people who post vitriolic statements about the quality of a PLAYER who would play AoS, instead of the quality OF AoS.

Hmm... I can only think of one person who often comments on the quality of person attracted to certain games, not just AoS.... And he isn't Anti-AoS!

Holier Than Thou
09-12-2015, 16:18
Hmm... I can only think of one person who often comments on the quality of person attracted to certain games, not just AoS.... And he isn't Anti-AoS!

Indeed. There are a lot of people who slag off AOS (the game) but there is one prolific poster who has straight up accused posters of lying, called posters frothing haters, etc and he's one of the staunchest AOS supporters on this forum.

Spiney Norman
09-12-2015, 16:29
I'm trying to process how this would work . . .

I agree, short of perpetrating acts of violence against GW and its employees I'm not sure how much more animosity could be levelled at AoS (unless he was talking about the greenskin Warscrolls).

It's an interesting perspective because a lot of anti-AoS voices I've heard are saying that it is having a positive effect on the industry as a whole because it's turning increasing number of people off GW and opening them up to other systems like warmachine and kings of warp.

akai
09-12-2015, 18:31
Err... yeah, I am saying some people play it uncomped. Congratulations! You pointed out something I have no problem admitting. I guess neither of you have ever heard the phrase "there's no accounting for taste", though? There'll always be people willing to play terrible games. The existence of people willing to play a terrible game, however, doesn't somehow make it a good game. Plenty of people play the card game War, but that doesn't mean that that game is particularly good or has any tactical depth to it.

But hey, feel free to point out how a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very tiny minority of AOS's already small playerbase actually plays with the game without any comp or house rules. It's pretty funny seeing how desperate the AOS defense has become, though, given that claiming that 0.1% of AOS's playerbase plays the game uncomped is now considered a win for the Pro-AOS argument. :D

Thanks for the congratulations. Hopefully your posts trying to support your agenda in the future is not so illogical or naive...


And that means (I assume) everyone take his/her very local, very anecdoctal, very limited experiences and generalize them on the whole wargaming population.
Which is a very elaborate way to say we're just making stuff up pretending that since it's true for us then it's true for everyone everywhere forever and ever.

Yeah, as I suspected reading 7+ pages of this thread (and many, many more pages on other ones). All this considered, could we at least try to avoid confrontational discussions and/or deeply biased stances? Clearly a lot of people are making stuff up just to score a point in the debate reporting their local experience with AoS. No need to sneer at fellow posters or derail the discussion trying to steer it on another "AoS is really crap and I'll show you why". Even if I don't think the OP made a great show with his/her AoS defence, an unbiased and collaborative thread about AoS myths (debunked or confirmed, both are equally valid points) would be EXTREMELY useful in the current hostile environment in this and many other boards. Please don't derail the thread, it has potential.

I apologize if I have steer the conversation off from the topic. I saw a "myth" / "reality" post that clearly was not thought out very well and felt the need to point it out. I don't think Turgol's post is intended to be a defense of AoS. He was pointing out what some people have stated in the past as what he believed to be myth. I do agree with him on the three "myths" that he stated...I don't necessarily agree with his opinion on GW's vision of AoS. Not every discussion of AoS have to be clearly a Pro-AoSers against Anti-AoSers and vice versa topic. Some people seem to want to draw battle lines for that distinction though -_-

To go back somewhat on topic:

I also agree that it is a myth to think AoS is not a game for competition.

Myth: People are writing up comps that are "X" times larger than the AoS rules.

Status: Most people making this comparison are including the comps' pages dedicated to the units' "points section" and comparing it to just the 4 pages of official AoS "core rules." The units mentioned in those dedicated pages within a comp pack is not mentioned or detailed in the 4 pages of AoS "core rules." Those dedicated comp pages are meant to put a "point value" for those official AoS warscrolls that are not part of the 4-page "core rules." Thus, a more appropriate comparison of size of comp packs to the rules of AoS should also include the official AoS warscroll rules. When you do make that comparison including the warscrolls, all comp packs I have seen so far are "X" times smaller than the AoS rules.

HelloKitty
09-12-2015, 19:25
Ive tried pointing that out but its more impactful to say that the pages that are just points are a part of a mega comp rules change.

Azyrs rule changes are 1.5 pages total. The rest point addition for dozens of models that dont change the rules of the game itself, but thats where the arguing semantics comes into play.

Azyr would also be less pages and the rule changes less than a page if the font were not really large and was instead 10 or 12 point.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

StygianBeach
09-12-2015, 19:37
I actually think AoS should be the subject of more animosity than it gets. The knock on effects of a game this bad can cause (and I suspect has caused) problems for the entire industry. The LGS has less wargamers in the store, so they're shrinking both stock and play space in favor of things that actually sell (mostly CCGs). There were 6 wargaming tables in the local store two weeks ago, now they're are only 4, with the former space taken up by folding tables and chairs.


I also think it sends a very clear message to 'longbeards.' Get out, get out now, or GW will stab your cat.

I agree (not about AoS deserving animosity), I think without GW wargaming will return to the garage. Less of a problem for those of us in high density population areas.

Buddy Bear
09-12-2015, 21:15
And that means (I assume) everyone take his/her very local, very anecdoctal, very limited experiences and generalize them on the whole wargaming population.
Which is a very elaborate way to say we're just making stuff up pretending that since it's true for us then it's true for everyone everywhere forever and ever.

Yeah, as I suspected reading 7+ pages of this thread (and many, many more pages on other ones). All this considered, could we at least try to avoid confrontational discussions and/or deeply biased stances? Clearly a lot of people are making stuff up just to score a point in the debate reporting their local experience with AoS. No need to sneer at fellow posters or derail the discussion trying to steer it on another "AoS is really crap and I'll show you why". Even if I don't think the OP made a great show with his/her AoS defence, an unbiased and collaborative thread about AoS myths (debunked or confirmed, both are equally valid points) would be EXTREMELY useful in the current hostile environment in this and many other boards. Please don't derail the thread, it has potential.

I'm not just talking about my local area. I'm talking about everything I've seen posted on these forums, including from the staunchest Pro-AOS defenders, as well as YouTube battle reports. Nearly every single time it's someone playing one comp or another. HelloKitty reports that their group has had over 900 games with AzyrComp, and that seems to be the kind of group which would be most condusive to AOS style gaming, and even they work off a 30 page comp document. From what I've observed, the tendency is to play it non-comped when using the box contents, and then quickly move on to some kind of comp system or another afterwards. But hey, if you want to point out all the people who play it rules-as-written, then go ahead.

Incidentally, your posts don't cease to be inflammatory just because you strikeout the inflammatory bits. They're still there to be read.


I think I get what you're saying, that AoS failing is bringing down wargaming in general? I'm not sure that could be quantified, as GW is the only publicly traded company, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that other games and game companies that produce Wargames are seeing an upswing in customers and sales.

The problem with animosity towards AoS is it easily becomes animosity towards players who play AoS. This is spearheaded by people who post vitriolic statements about the quality of a PLAYER who would play AoS, instead of the quality OF AoS.

I agree with the first point, that AOS is helping wargaming in general. It's not helping GW, though, and the last thing GW needs is to take 40k down the AOS path as well. That may not be disastrous for wargaming in general, as the industry is at a point where they've outgrown GW, but it would be for AOS.

As others have pointed out, the animosity towards AOS, despite claims by others, hasn't really turned into animosity towards AOS players. On the other hand, though, I have noticed a number of Pro-AOS folks who have no problem personally insulting those who disagree with them.

Katastrophe
09-12-2015, 21:19
Ive tried pointing that out but its more impactful to say that the pages that are just points are a part of a mega comp rules change.

Azyrs rule changes are 1.5 pages total. The rest point addition for dozens of models that dont change the rules of the game itself, but thats where the arguing semantics comes into play.


Actually adding points is a rules change in a major way. The current game has no such rule or measure and you have created one whole cloth where it previously did not exist. It also creates a measure that is appositive to the way the game was designed to be played.

But what do I know

Voss
09-12-2015, 21:46
I agree (not about AoS deserving animosity), I think without GW wargaming will return to the garage. Less of a problem for those of us in high density population areas.
Uh... actually no. At least not over here. I've had a much harder time getting games when I lived in cities than I did/do living in suburbs or college towns.


You're mixing up the wargaming industry (as is, companies that produce and possibly sell miniatures and rule systems) with the infrastructure and/or secondary market that is tied to wargaming (as is, brick&mortar/online stores and gaming clubs).
I agree with you, many clubs and stores relied pretty heavily on GW products to attract customers or hobbists...and obviously any kind of GW product "not delivering" or "not being interesting enough" could potentially cause them a lot of problems. But clubs and stores/retailers are NOT the wargaming industry. Companies producing miniatures and rule systems are the wargaming industry, and while I agree that GW is the heavyweight of sci-fi/fantasy wargaming their problems remain inside their corporate structure - companies like Warlord, Osprey and many others (both small and big, young or well established) are not going to suffer some kind of contagion effect and suffer the same problems.

:eyebrows: Yeah, don't leave out the important part of the equation: customers. People getting fed up with things (and that includes other companies not being able to fill the void left by GW 'fast enough') does in fact affect the spending of customers, and thus the companies, and thus the industry as a whole. I'm not mixing up anything- the contagion hits the customers and it spreads through lack of spending.

Its also a matter of location. A lot of the companies, including Osprey (the Frostgrave books recently came back into stock, but the models are still largely nowhere to be seen), Infinity and Mantic, Perrys and others are often spotty in availability over here. The big holiday sale over here was particularly noticeable in how much stuff from everyone was simply out-of-stock for the duration. I spent far less than I planned to, simply because it wasn't here to be purchased.

Hishbishy
09-12-2015, 22:19
I spent far less than I planned to, simply because it wasn't here to be purchased.

If only AoS Limited Editions had that problem, eh?

HelloKitty
09-12-2015, 22:21
Actually adding points is a rules change in a major way. The current game has no such rule or measure and you have created one whole cloth where it previously did not exist. It also creates a measure that is appositive to the way the game was designed to be played.

But what do I know

I dont see it as making vast huge rule changes the same as writing a scenario that dictates forces would be writing vast huge changes. Its a way to measure forces for scenarios.

The actual rule changes are a page and a half.

As to how the game was "designed to be played", thats both a non issue to me and the designers themselves disagree as they stated at gen con the game was designed to be used with whatever system your game group wanted to use with it.

The only people that really want to make that an issue seem to be people that dont like to play altered rulesets and prefer rules as written.

To that point ive never played a single system rules as written which is why its a non issue for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

akai
09-12-2015, 22:31
Semantics aside, I do agree with Katastrophe that the addition of points to allow what models/warscrolls can be used do create another layer on top of the official game.

MohRokTah
09-12-2015, 22:32
I dont see it as making vast huge rule changes the same as writing a scenario that dictates forces would be writing vast huge changes. Its a way to measure forces for scenarios.

The actual rule changes are a page and a half.

As to how the game was "designed to be played", thats both a non issue to me and the designers themselves disagree as they stated at gen con the game was designed to be used with whatever system your game group wanted to use with it.

The only people that really want to make that an issue seem to be people that dont like to play altered rulesets and prefer rules as written.

To that point ive never played a single system rules as written which is why its a non issue for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even if the only change you make is to measure from the model base instead of from the model itself, you still are not playing RAW. I have yet to meet any person IRL that played the game RAW.

HelloKitty
09-12-2015, 22:49
Semantics aside, I do agree with Katastrophe that the addition of points to allow what models/warscrolls can be used do create another layer on top of the official game.

Not arguing that. I argue against the exaggeration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HelloKitty
09-12-2015, 22:50
Even if the only change you make is to measure from the model base instead of from the model itself, you still are not playing RAW. I have yet to meet any person IRL that played the game RAW.

Not arguing that either. Thats the part i said was a non issue to me as ive never played any game RAW. From boxed d&d in 1979 all the way through battletech and dba and original starvwars and chainmail through the gw era.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tyranno1
09-12-2015, 22:57
Not arguing that. I argue against the exaggeration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yet you make exaggeration such as this:


The only people that really want to make that an issue seem to be people that dont like to play altered rulesets and prefer rules as written.

I have seen much back and forth on these forums this past however the hell long this cluster**** has been going on; but nobody has made the argument that "I dont like AOS because I only play official ever".

When people do want to alter a ruleset, you will find that a better written and more concise set of rules is a better start for customization.

People will make do with what they have. If a set of rules fits what they need, they will use/tweak it. If a set of rules is bad, they wont, especially when another, better written one, is still available.

Also, AoS is a problem for people who only have the option of playing at a GW store (due to lack of garages or LGS etc) as Warhammer Fantasy is being banned across them.
Store managers are ok with you combing yourself and your opponent, as long as you are still playing AoS within its walls.
But fantasy is a no-no.
Tweak AoS all you want, but to most, bad will always be bad.

akai
09-12-2015, 23:41
When people do want to alter a ruleset, you will find that a better written and more concise set of rules is a better start for customization.

People will make do with what they have. If a set of rules fits what they need, they will use/tweak it. If a set of rules is bad, they wont, especially when another, better written one, is still available.

A type of argument I usually hear on Warseer's General Forum is that "if AoS is so great why are you comping so much into it." In which I think you answered that in the above quote (whether or not someone think AoS is good or bad).


Also, AoS is a problem for people who only have the option of playing at a GW store (due to lack of garages or LGS etc) as Warhammer Fantasy is being banned across them.
Store managers are ok with you combing yourself and your opponent, as long as you are still playing AoS within its walls.
But fantasy is a no-no.
Tweak AoS all you want, but to most, bad will always be bad.

Sadly, you don't have much freedom to what you can play in GW store...even their own products! My local GW store do allow people to play discontinued editions of GW games on Thursdays (though he states he need to show that the space is being used by customers that are buying products from the store to justify the tables being used for discontinued products).

Tyranno1
09-12-2015, 23:46
A type of argument I usually hear on Warseer's General Forum is that "if AoS is so great why are you comping so much into it." In which I think you answered that in the above quote (whether or not someone think AoS is good or bad).

Sadly, you don't have much freedom to what you can play in GW store...even their own products! My local GW store do allow people to play discontinued editions of GW games on Thursdays (though he states he need to show that the space is being used by customers that are buying products from the store to justify the tables being used for discontinued products).

I think its more the extent of comp seen is what is being pointed at. Due to most 8th games people see go un-comped outsdie tournies, but with AoS, we see comp even in basic games. This then appearing like the game is unplayable in its basic state. Therefore, bad.

The Thursday game night used to be a safe haven for us too, but even that has been stripped from us and the local community here is broken and in disarray.

Tokamak
10-12-2015, 00:29
I have seen much back and forth on these forums this past however the hell long this cluster**** has been going on; but nobody has made the argument that "I dont like AOS because I only play official ever".


I do. I expect my games to function out of the box. It's not up to me to balance and polish a ruleset. I care about the rules. I love getting involved in beta tests for any type of game and I love participating in the discussions about these rules. Already have a few signed posters of developers hanging on my wall as gratitude for the involvement.

However, ultimately the onus is on the developers to make a game that works consistently across the entire player base. If people still want to deviate from that then that's fine but it shouldn't be a necessity to start with.

Spiney Norman
10-12-2015, 00:50
However, ultimately the onus is on the developers to make a game that works consistently across the entire player base. If people still want to deviate from that then that's fine but it shouldn't be a necessity to start with.

In fairness, if you genuinely believe that, most games out there are a failure, in all honesty the only table top war games that are played (or were played) universally, almost everywhere across a wide range of gamers of different ages etc are 40k and wfb. Even games like KoW that are gaining traction in the wake of the demise of wfb are doing so from a position of almost total obscurity, previously people didn't bother to comp them because they didn't even want to play them in the first place.

AoS does work just fine out of the box, but it's fair to say that playing it that way doesn't work for some people, the fact that they see sufficient value in the game to warrant the effort to write points systems/comp packs for it says to me that there are at least some people out there that are playing the game, and for every group that designs their own comp pack there are others (like ours) who are playing the game without comp and enjoying playing through the battle plans.

Voss
10-12-2015, 00:53
If only AoS Limited Editions had that problem, eh?

No. That would mean people are wasting money on a lousy product and contributing to more lousy products in the future.
AoS products not selling is the best possible result.

Since unlike all the price hike controversies where people complained and bought anyway, AoS has a real chance of being discarded for failure, even by the myopic GW leadership.

Kahadras
10-12-2015, 01:05
I expect my games to function out of the box.

I would agree with that. Even with the base rules being free I would have liked to feel that GW had actualy done some serious play testing before they released AoS. The rules themselves feel like they've been rushed though on a Friday afternoon with the game due out next Monday. AoS was in development for such a long time you'd think they'd at least have had time to work out a points system for the game. It's not like they were breaking new ground.

2DSick
10-12-2015, 03:26
Even games like KoW that are gaining traction in the wake of the demise of wfb are doing so from a position of almost total obscurity, previously people didn't bother to comp them because they didn't even want to play them in the first place.

You genuinely think KoW never gets comped because noone used to play it?

Open Question then.

Who plays KoW with any form of comp?

Because I for one have never read about or met anyone who's has ever felt the need to. One might even expect one or two comp threads on the Mantic forum... Nope, not single one. The tournament pack goes as far as say, play it as it's written!

Buddy Bear
10-12-2015, 03:33
You genuinely think KoW never gets comped because noone used to play it?

Open Question then.

Who plays KoW with any form of comp?

Because I for one have never read about or met anyone who's has ever felt the need to. One might even expect one or two comp threads on the Mantic forum... Nope, not single one. The tournament pack goes as far as say, play it as it's written!

And even if someone does houserule it, there certainly wasn't a massive movement from among its playerbase to houserule it right from the very first day it was released, with a large number, if not the majority of its playerbase, playing a houseruled version of it.

ElOrso
10-12-2015, 06:50
AoS does work just fine out of the box, but it's fair to say that playing it that way doesn't work for some people, ....

I think saying the following is more accurate:

"AoS doesn't work out of the box for most people."

That's why there is so much complaining.
But we, who don't like it, need to accept this isn't a democracy and those who like it need to understand they are a minority. ;)

People need to let go and spend their time on positive things, even if you have the feeling you were "robbed" by GW.
I know it's hard to read how great AoS is perceived by some players, i am also still shell-shocked with this abomination they released into the world, but spend your time playing something else instead of wasting it here.
I know it's hard when they killed one of your "babies", but it's time to move on, as most have already.
These forums would be close to empty without the ongoing AoS discussions, another sign AoS is a disaster.

Bloodknight
10-12-2015, 07:38
Who plays KoW with any form of comp?

The German tournament circuit is working on a comp set for KoW because that system broke down on the tournament level in their opinion.


Absolute balance is a unicorn, though. I (and a few other admins and a rules council of veteran players that is elected by other players, and yes, we have Mathematicians and Statisticians on board) have been trying to balance an online campaign for 3025 Battletech so that armies will be fair, people will have fun from bad to excellent players. Let's just say we get game and player data (we track an ELO-score for the players so the matches can be assessed from "game between champions" to "poor baby seal clubbing") from roughly 1000 games a month and have been doing so since the project started in 2003 and we still haven't found the sweet spot, with data from about 200.000 games, for a campaign layer!
I used to be angry at those lousy lazy developers, too, until I found out that, no matter how much you test, in a game with that many variables (Starcraft is often used as an epitome of balance, but that game only had 3 factions and was still constantly being patched for years and over literally millions of games to get where it was), you won't find perfect balance. It can't be done. Even Chess is only fair between players of equal strength (and that match-up is incredibly rare, too) if you play two games and change sides after the first. When you playtest with, say, 20 players, you just can't play enough in a lifetime. It takes all of 5 minutes for the ruleset to be in the wild until the first guy finds a way to break it, no matter how many checks and balances you think you've implemented.
Look at the comp sets for WFB, they never achieved it either, once you cut out the most evil stuff, something else will emerge as the new evil. And no matter how much WFB was comped, since they were relying on the books and never went at the actual points costs of the units, Daemons ruled 7th edition in whichever form, period :).


I'm starting to believe that players need to play what they think works best for them because no developer can possibly give them what they crave (not to forget that local groups are very different in expectations and skill levels. In one city VC might rule, in another Daemons, in some place I bet that Tomb Kings were thought to be uber, probably because the guy playing them was really good at it or the others were just bad at countering them). Back to our campaign, we once tried to implement what the players said they wanted. Turns out that 10 players wanted 15 things that are often diametrically opposed, and once implemented, they also tended to hate their own ideas and blamed the staff, it was hilarious.

Anyway, my point is:
Whichever game you're playing, develop a local meta and play what you think is fun. That's as good as it will generally get.

2DSick
10-12-2015, 08:01
Sorry BK...that was a TLDR.

But the take.away point is a good one.

It makes me wonder what the Germans found so broken. I've attended a good few tournaments and no one faction or unit type dominated.

I get that some people find flyers difficult to deal with but that's a matter of experience tbh.

Spiney Norman
10-12-2015, 08:31
You genuinely think KoW never gets comped because noone used to play it?

Open Question then.

Who plays KoW with any form of comp?

Because I for one have never read about or met anyone who's has ever felt the need to. One might even expect one or two comp threads on the Mantic forum... Nope, not single one. The tournament pack goes as far as say, play it as it's written!

That wasn't my point actually, the point was that before AoS King of War was not even looked at by the vast majority of gamers/hobbiests and if wfb hadn't been discontinued it would be in exactly the same position.

And since nobody locally even wants to give KoW a try I couldn't possibly speculate on the type of person (German or otherwise) who might want to comp KoW, it is simply a complete non-entity around here.

Buddy Bear
10-12-2015, 08:44
I've started playing it and have never had any reason to want to alter its rules in any way, nor does anyone in my area who's been introduced to it. And from looking at the forums, I haven't encountered anyone there who's felt the need to comp or hosuerule the game in any way. Maybe someone does, who knows, but it's not something which is immediately apparent. No talk about "We're using houserule X" in a tactics thread or whatnot.

That's in start contrast to AOS Day 1, when people were running around like headless chickens freaking out and wondering if that was it, some kept trying to claim that they're just intro rules and the full rules would come later, others were pointing out game breaking combinations within 15 minutes of the publication of the rules, some others were posting what they thought was an official comp document from GW limiting army construction to wounds or number of battlescrolls, and still others were already coming up with their own comp packets.

Wishing
10-12-2015, 08:58
Actually now that I think of it a quote from GW explaining the narrative gaming experience would be nice as well.
Otherwise a person might think random posters were making claims for AoS like 'narrative gaming' and 'non-competitive table-top game' that are simply figments of their own imaginations.

Figment of imagination = interpretation.

I don't know what GW intends with the game, just like I don't know what the author intends when I read a novel. But I can look at the product and form an interpretation of what I see its underlying theme as being.


So what you are saying is that it's not a game but a performance piece masquerading as a game.

A mystery why it's not flying off the shelves.

Sort of, yeah. Just like other cooperative games without a winner and a loser, that still involve rolling dice. Like a roleplaying game, or Heroquest.

GW's challenge seems to me to be that they want the spirit of these cooperative games in AoS, hence the lack of points, but they want the overall framework to be that of a competitive game, like Warmachine, so that the game will be easily understandable and accessible. These two things can work together *for people that understand and appreciate the combo*, but I think the majority of people don't, so I agree that this is probably the main reason for AoS's issues with the gaming community.

The underlying point of AoS though I think is that most people aren't really expected to play the game, they're just meant to collect the models for the game, and think that they might play some day. I think that's the justification for the cooperative angle. And a good reason why actual gamers hate GW so much and play other games instead.

Ben
10-12-2015, 09:01
I'll put it this way. I recently bought Gates of Antares. It has a page where it talks about narrative gaming and pickup/club/tournament gaming, and then gives 6 balanced scenarios and 6 asymmetric scenarios.

Rick Priestley has clearly thought about how people actually play games, not about how he would like people to play his games in a fantasy land where nobody tries to win a game because that's awfully rude.

I'm very impressed with Gates of Antares in general. It also sets out the lore and background for the setting in a decent amount of detail.

Wishing
10-12-2015, 09:05
Not arguing that either. Thats the part i said was a non issue to me as ive never played any game RAW. From boxed d&d in 1979 all the way through battletech and dba and original starvwars and chainmail through the gw era.

There are certainly people that do though. Warmachine's fanbase seems quite adamant in a belief that any kind of local modification to the rules is very very bad, and that one of the cornerstones of the community is that everyone around the world plays the game in exactly the same way.

Zywus
10-12-2015, 09:05
There is some KoW alterations going on. I've seen people write that they play with random charge rangese instead of fixed.
In Ironwatch issue 38 (?) there is a fan-made magic expansion that people can use if they want some more spells and having magic make more of an impact and I remember at least one tournament where the organizer had written an extra spell for each army that they could purchase for use in addition to the ones they have access to.
The rules for hills are also a bit counter-intuitive and I suspect a fair number of people have houseruled those to simply be reciprocal.

All that said, the KoW rules are very functional as is, and most add-ons seem to be played by people wanting to customise the game a bit towards their personal tastes or just try something new; shake it up a bit.

Spiney Norman
10-12-2015, 09:13
There are certainly people that do though. Warmachine's fanbase seems quite adamant in a belief that any kind of local modification to the rules is very very bad, and that one of the cornerstones of the community is that everyone around the world plays the game in exactly the same way.

That's the same kind of attitude that banned us from using Forgeworld models/units in our games of 40k and wfb for years, IMO people need to stop trying to control how other people do their hobby.

Wishing
10-12-2015, 10:03
That's the same kind of attitude that banned us from using Forgeworld models/units in our games of 40k and wfb for years, IMO people need to stop trying to control how other people do their hobby.

I'm also in the "make the game your own" camp, probably because I started with GW and this is their philosophy - a philosophy that is very clear in AoS, where the task of constructing the parameters of each game lies very much with the players. In effect, GW supplies the models, but the players create their own game experience.

But I think there is room for the WM approach too, which is more of a "the game is a community" attitude. WM is specifically designed for this, so it works for them. It's just very different from the highly individually oriented GW games.

The conflicts only arise when people disagree on what attitude to adopt for a specific game.

Zywus
10-12-2015, 10:36
That's the same kind of attitude that banned us from using Forgeworld models/units in our games of 40k and wfb for years, IMO people need to stop trying to control how other people do their hobby.
I'd say it's that attitude combined with the lackadaisical GW attitude towards balance and making any official statements.

Had Privateer Press had a Forgeworld spinoff company like GW's FW, they would presumably have made it clear whether or not they intended the models to be used in competitive gaming, tournaments etc. or just be used as display pieces or for narrative scenarios.
Also, since PP games tend to be balanced I doubt that their fanbase would have the instinctive reaction to assume the PPFW rules would be unbalanced.

Holier Than Thou
10-12-2015, 11:01
IMO people need to stop trying to control how other people do their hobby.

And yet that's exactly what people are doing when they have to discuss models, summoning rules, comp pack, etc they want their opponent to use or avoid in Age of Sigmar.

Denny
10-12-2015, 11:07
And yet that's exactly what people are doing when they have to discuss models, summoning rules, comp pack, etc they want their opponent to use or avoid in Age of Sigmar.

Not if they 'discuss' these issues ('Do you fancy using this comp pack?') as opposed to 'demanding'. ;)

Allen
10-12-2015, 11:11
I'd say it's that attitude combined with the lackadaisical GW attitude towards balance and making any official statements.

Had Privateer Press had a Forgeworld spinoff company like GW's FW, they would presumably have made it clear whether or not they intended the models to be used in competitive gaming, tournaments etc. or just be used as display pieces or for narrative scenarios.
Also, since PP games tend to be balanced I doubt that their fanbase would have the instinctive reaction to assume the PPFW rules would be unbalanced.


Hmmm...probably it's more about balancing. GW never worked too hard (or worked at all) to strive towards balance in their game systems. Officially allowing the products of another game studio to be used in their core games would only have worsened the balance issue that was (and is) already dire.

Zywus
10-12-2015, 11:15
It's the same thing though in this wargaming context since both players can veto whatever 'demand' the other makes.

Someone not wanting to allow another's FW models is the same thing as someone not wanting to allow another player to field more than one Bloodthirster and Nagash in a 30 model AoS battle. Although one of those demands might be seen as more reasonable than the other.


Hmmm...probably it's more about balancing. GW never worked too hard (or worked at all) to strive towards balance in their game systems. Officially allowing the products of another game studio to be used in their core games would only have worsened the balance issue that was (and is) already dire.Percieved balancing issues is probably the classic reason.

I don't think it holds any water nowadays though. Is there really any FW stuff that's more unbalanced than some of the recent 40K formations with Wraithknights galore and a million scatterlaser bikes, marines with 15 free razorbacks, Necrons that can't be killed, armies consisting soley of Imperial knights or whatever silliness that game has descended into these days?

Holier Than Thou
10-12-2015, 11:59
Not if they 'discuss' these issues ('Do you fancy using this comp pack?') as opposed to 'demanding'. ;)

"Do you fancy using this comp pack?"

"Not really because it unnecessarily penalises me for picking X."

"No it doesn't."

"Yes it does. I'd rather use this comp."

"Haha, you must be kidding, right? That makes my Y completely useless."

"No it doesn't."

"Yes it does."

etc, etc, etc.

One way or another, someone will have to play against how they wanted to.

Niall78
10-12-2015, 12:04
I'm also in the "make the game your own" camp, probably because I started with GW and this is their philosophy - a philosophy that is very clear in AoS, where the task of constructing the parameters of each game lies very much with the players. In effect, GW supplies the models, but the players create their own game experience.

But I think there is room for the WM approach too, which is more of a "the game is a community" attitude. WM is specifically designed for this, so it works for them. It's just very different from the highly individually oriented GW games.

The conflicts only arise when people disagree on what attitude to adopt for a specific game.

Can you supply quotes from GW where they describe their fantastically expensive new tabletop war-game as a "make your own game" product?

Are you trying to compare AoS to GRUPS?

Or should this "make your own game" nonsense go in the myth pile with "narrative" and "casual"?

Tuatha Dar
10-12-2015, 12:15
Hmmm...probably it's more about balancing. GW never worked too hard (or worked at all) to strive towards balance in their game systems. Officially allowing the products of another game studio to be used in their core games would only have worsened the balance issue that was (and is) already dire.

I wonder how many people have ever compared the play testers credited in a Privateer Press product versus a GW product? The latest Hordes book - Devastation, lists 13 internal play testers, and 12 External. Heck, they even list 2 guys who's job is "Continuity", and 4 Proofreaders. PP takes putting out quality, well balanced products very seriously it seems to me. GW seems not keen on devoting the resources to do this. I this really shows with AoS in that with no points, and leaving it completely up to the players to decide what is "fair", essentially no playtesting at all seems to be the direction they are going. I have no interest in this approach, and as a 40K player, it concerns me quite a bit.

Denny
10-12-2015, 12:27
One way or another, someone will have to play against how they wanted to.

My regular opponent (in 40K) has autocannons on his Chimera. This is not permitted in the rules, but the conversation basically went like this:

Jon: 'Hey guys, do you mind if I build these with autocannons and pay and extra 5 points per model?'
Everyone else: 'Sure.'

Perhaps we are an unusually agreeable bunch of people?

Wishing
10-12-2015, 12:28
Or should this "make your own game" nonsense go in the myth pile with "narrative" and "casual"?

I'd say it goes in the interpretation/opinion pile, just like everything else.

Tokamak
10-12-2015, 12:32
Yeah, what's so 'casual' about having to make up your own amendments in the first place?


In fairness, if you genuinely believe that, most games out there are a failure, in all honesty the only table top war games that are played (or were played) universally, almost everywhere across a wide range of gamers of different ages etc are 40k and wfb. Even games like KoW that are gaining traction in the wake of the demise of wfb are doing so from a position of almost total obscurity, previously people didn't bother to comp them because they didn't even want to play them in the first place.


If people still want to deviate from that then that's fine but it shouldn't be a necessity to start with.

We don't change anything about the End Times games we play. I wouldn't know what to change in the first place.

Holier Than Thou
10-12-2015, 12:36
My regular opponent (in 40K) has autocannons on his Chimera. This is not permitted in the rules, but the conversation basically went like this:

Jon: 'Hey guys, do you mind if I build these with autocannons and pay and extra 5 points per model?'
Everyone else: 'Sure.'

Perhaps we are an unusually agreeable bunch of people?

So a regular opponent, and possibly friend, has an agreement with friends? Well, yeah, that's the same thing. :rolleyes:

Niall78
10-12-2015, 12:47
I'd say it goes in the interpretation/opinion pile, just like everything else.

Saying AoS is a "build your own" bare bones game system designed for players to build their own game certainly isn't subjective. It is a statement of fact. Just looking for evidence to back this line of reasoning up. There is none as far as I can see.

Same problem we have with "narrative" and "casual". People are making statements about AoS that have zero basis in any published material by GW.

Spiney Norman
10-12-2015, 13:02
Hmmm...probably it's more about balancing. GW never worked too hard (or worked at all) to strive towards balance in their game systems. Officially allowing the products of another game studio to be used in their core games would only have worsened the balance issue that was (and is) already dire.

I really don't think that's true, I can't think of anything Forgeworld have put out that has even come close to how broken the 5th edition grey knight codex was or the current eldar wraith knight or Necron Decurion are for example. Balance in 40k has been terrible in every edition I have played, and even the occasional outliers for the FW experimentals usually compare quite favourably to the rules abominations perpetrated by the 40k studio.


Saying AoS is a "build your own" bare bones game system designed for players to build their own game certainly isn't subjective. It is a statement of fact. Just looking for evidence to back this line of reasoning up. There is none as far as I can see.

Same problem we have with "narrative" and "casual". People are making statements about AoS that have zero basis in any published material by GW.

But if people are using the game that way and having fun, who are you to say they are wrong? I'm not sure why people need permission from officially published GW material to have fun with their games.

By 'narrative' I mean telling a story through the game, by 'casual' (as opposed to 'competitive') I mean entirely unconcerned whether you win or lose as long as you have fun. AoS does both those things extremely well for me, that's not to say other games don't or can't be used in that way, just that among the game systems and opponents I have available to me, AoS scratches that itch really well.

Denny
10-12-2015, 13:20
So a regular opponent, and possibly friend, has an agreement with friends? Well, yeah, that's the same thing. :rolleyes:

A non-regular opponent who I'd never met before once asked to use that giant forgeworld Necron centipede thing.
The answer was also 'Sure'. Man that thing was nasty.

Frankly, if anyone wants to try something my default is always 'sure'.
I genuinely struggle to understand why someone would say 'No you can't do that', but I suppose I'm the kind of person who likes trying stuff.

I have never seen anything like the little exchange you provided. Maybe I'm just lucky, but are you basing that on an actual conversation you were a part of, or do you just think that's how people would act?


?

Denny
10-12-2015, 13:22
So a regular opponent, and possibly friend, has an agreement with friends? Well, yeah, that's the same thing. :rolleyes:

A non-regular opponent who I'd never met before once asked to use that giant forgeworld Necron centipede thing.
The answer was also 'Sure'. Man that thing was nasty.

Frankly, if anyone wants to try something my default is always 'sure'.
I genuinely struggle to understand why someone would say 'No you can't do that', but I suppose I'm the kind of person who likes trying stuff.

I have never seen anything like the little exchange you provided. Maybe I'm just lucky, but are you basing that on an actual conversation you were a part of, or do you just think that's how people would act?

Allen
10-12-2015, 13:29
It's the same thing though in this wargaming context since both players can veto whatever 'demand' the other makes.

Someone not wanting to allow another's FW models is the same thing as someone not wanting to allow another player to field more than one Bloodthirster and Nagash in a 30 model AoS battle. Although one of those demands might be seen as more reasonable than the other

Probably because GW gaming experience is quite different from other wargaming experiences - one of the most egregious examples are opponents. When I play other wargames, I usually know my opponents: friends, acquaintances and so on. When I play GW games, I usually have a wider audience avalaible and often I play with people I don't know at all: the classic pickup game of "hey, wanna play 40K at 2000pts?" in a GW store or in a gaming club.


Percieved balancing issues is probably the classic reason. I don't think it holds any water nowadays though. Is there really any FW stuff that's more unbalanced than some of the recent 40K formations with Wraithknights galore and a million scatterlaser bikes, marines with 15 free razorbacks, Necrons that can't be killed, armies consisting soley of Imperial knights or whatever silliness that game has descended into these days?

I don't know, balance issues in GW games aren't perceived at all - at least IMHO. Codex/Army Books balancing issues are a well know pain since time immemorial. Forgeworld stuff isn't terribly unbalanced (if we compare it to GW proper, of course), but I suppose that adding unbalanced FW stuff to an already unbalanced quagmire of core GW rules would end in a disaster.

Wishing
10-12-2015, 13:32
Saying AoS is a "build your own" bare bones game system designed for players to build their own game certainly isn't subjective. It is a statement of fact. Just looking for evidence to back this line of reasoning up. There is none as far as I can see.

Same problem we have with "narrative" and "casual". People are making statements about AoS that have zero basis in any published material by GW.

Statements like "AoS seems to me like..." are just expressions of subjective interpretations and perspectives, not claims to empirical fact. I don't see the need to point out that they are not empirical fact when they haven't claimed to be so.

A myth and an opinion isn't the same thing.

Holier Than Thou
10-12-2015, 14:54
A non-regular opponent who I'd never met before once asked to use that giant forgeworld Necron centipede thing.
The answer was also 'Sure'. Man that thing was nasty.

Frankly, if anyone wants to try something my default is always 'sure'.
I genuinely struggle to understand why someone would say 'No you can't do that', but I suppose I'm the kind of person who likes trying stuff.

I have never seen anything like the little exchange you provided. Maybe I'm just lucky, but are you basing that on an actual conversation you were a part of, or do you just think that's how people would act?

No, I've not had such a conversation. As I've said many times, I'm lucky enough to have a group of friends that I play with, I don't have to rely on pick up games. But just because I don't have to worry about that doesn't mean I don't think it can, and will, happen. Especially with the number of different comp packs out there, people will likely adopt the one that suits their army best which might not be the same one some random person in the shop uses.

Denny
10-12-2015, 15:04
No, I've not had such a conversation. As I've said many times, I'm lucky enough to have a group of friends that I play with, I don't have to rely on pick up games. But just because I don't have to worry about that doesn't mean I don't think it can, and will, happen.

So, for now, I guess the scenario counts as a myth? :angel:;)

Holier Than Thou
10-12-2015, 15:13
So, for now, I guess the scenario counts as a myth? :angel:;)

Yep, it can be filed as a myth. Same as the moon landing. And Celtic winning the European Cup in 67. I didn't see them happen either so maybe they didn't. :rolleyes:

Denny
10-12-2015, 15:51
Yep, it can be filed as a myth. Same as the moon landing. And Celtic winning the European Cup in 67. I didn't see them happen either so maybe they didn't. :rolleyes:

Somebody saw them happen though. ;)

The moon landing isn't something someone wrote on a message board based on their assumption of what would happen if there were rockets. :shifty:

akai
10-12-2015, 15:54
Saying AoS is a "build your own" bare bones game system designed for players to build their own game certainly isn't subjective. It is a statement of fact. Just looking for evidence to back this line of reasoning up. There is none as far as I can see.

Same problem we have with "narrative" and "casual". People are making statements about AoS that have zero basis in any published material by GW.

I was actually going to make a new thread about this...maybe I still will. Here are the various quotes from with the AoS starter book and the first two hardback books that I was trying to organize for a new thread. Whatever GW intentions are, the way I have read/interpret the AoS books is how I plan to continue playing and enjoying the type of AoS games of my own choosing.


"The possibilities are limited only by your imagination"
"The Warhammer : Age of Sigmar rules provide a framework for you to bring your miniatures to life, and command them in battle on the tabletop."
"The rules presented in the sections that follow give you a framework to make this tale your own."
"More than that, though, they enable you to tell your own stories set in the Mortal Realms, and use your collection of Citiadel Miniatures in glorious battles of your own devising."
"Whatever your goals, these rules will allow you to live out one exciting tale of battle after another, your exploits through the fantastical landscapes of the realms limited only by your imagination."


To make it very clear, the definition of "framework" from Free Dictionary website -

Framework - A structure for supporting or enclosing something else, especially a skeletal support used as the basis for something being constructed.

Some people use AoS as a framework for different type of comp tournaments (http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=99&t=131808). Some people use AoS as a framework for the narrative campaign that revolves around a few heroes leading large armies or rank-and-file troops. Use AoS as a framework that is only limited by your own imagination (and of course with whom you can play with :D).

Holier Than Thou
10-12-2015, 16:48
Somebody saw them happen though. ;)

The moon landing isn't something someone wrote on a message board based on their assumption of what would happen if there were rockets. :shifty:

You asked if I had witnessed such conversations and when I stated I hadn't you suggested that they didn't exist.
But HelloKitty has stated on numerous occasions that he/she wasn't allowed to use certain models, play in certain styles, etc so that would suggest this type of conversation has happened and will continue to happen.

Denny
10-12-2015, 17:01
You asked if I had witnessed such conversations and when I stated I hadn't you suggested that they didn't exist.
But HelloKitty has stated on numerous occasions that he/she wasn't allowed to use certain models, play in certain styles, etc so that would suggest this type of conversation has happened and will continue to happen.

But not, I think, with AoS?
Anyway, I'm being overly pedantic. I'll stop dragging this thread off course. :)

Allen
10-12-2015, 17:02
Well, technically speaking any rule system can be used as a framework to build any kind of wargame you and your group fancy. In the past me and some of the guys I played Mordheim with modified the rules so much it became de facto some kind of derivative new game. Some rule systems are more suited than others to be "frameworked", obviously, but it's possible with almost every system - at least IMHO. To elaborate, AoS is actually a decent "frameworking" game - better certaintly than previous GW products, but way inferior if we compare it to better products in the same market niche...like Frostgrave, for example.

About the dreaded "AoS is/isn't narrative gaming"...well, it really depends on the meaning you assign to narrative. For me "narrative" in wargaming is a synonim for scenario-based. Osprey/Ambush Alley's Force on Force for me is narrative, for example: not because you build some kind of fantastic tale about your campaigns and/or the background of your armies ( even if with the Cold War Gone Hot expansion I've worked on that too :) ) but because instead of a point system telling me what kind of balance I should have with my opponent's force is the narrative/story of the scenario telling me what kind of balance or advantages each one should have.

Just my two cents.

ScruffMan
10-12-2015, 17:07
How many times can you guys have the same conversation over and over?! Mad as hatters!

Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk

akai
10-12-2015, 17:28
To elaborate, AoS is actually a decent "frameworking" game - better certaintly than previous GW products, but way inferior if we compare it to better products in the same market niche...like Frostgrave, for example.

I have not played Frostgrave, but my impression of it is similar to Mordheim in scale with a focus on wizard leaders. Does the game provide a framework to play hundred(s) models on each side rather than a dozen or two models per side at most?

NoobLord
10-12-2015, 17:42
I have not played Frostgrave, but my impression of it is similar to Mordheim in scale with a focus on wizard leaders. Does the game provide a framework to play hundred(s) models on each side rather than a dozen or two models per side at most?

No. The maximum number of models you can have in your warband is 15 by my calculations (normally it is 10) without turning up with a bucketload of summoning potions*.

The framework thing I think comes from the book including optional rules, encouraging house rules, and making the game your own. The background is sketched out but left open enough that you can customize it a great deal without contradiction. The whole philosophy from the designer, who posts regularly on LAF, is use whatever models you fancy and add/subtract to the game as printed as much as you and your friends like.

* just remembered that the Crowmaster and his crow count as 2 models for 1 slot so you could go way above this by having a crow air force if you had the gold and the inclination.

akai
10-12-2015, 17:49
No. The maximum number of models you can have in your warband is 15 by my calculations (normally it is 10) without turning up with a bucketload of summoning potions*.

The framework thing I think comes from the book including optional rules, encouraging house rules, and making the game your own. The background is sketched out but left open enough that you can customize it a great deal without contradiction. The whole philosophy from the designer, who posts regularly on LAF, is use whatever models you fancy and add/subtract to the game as printed as much as you and your friends like.

Where or what is LAF? I am curious to read more about Frostgrave.

NoobLord
10-12-2015, 17:55
Lead Adventure Forum

http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?board=92.0

These guys from Norway walk the viewer through their first few games (in very good English I should add!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjyVvybwRKg

Allen
11-12-2015, 09:16
The framework thing I think comes from the book including optional rules, encouraging house rules, and making the game your own. The background is sketched out but left open enough that you can customize it a great deal without contradiction. The whole philosophy from the designer, who posts regularly on LAF, is use whatever models you fancy and add/subtract to the game as printed as much as you and your friends like

Spot on. That's the kind of wargaming framework I was speaking about - not every rule system is scalable from skirmish to pitched battle and vice versa, but that's not the kind of "customization" everyone seeks...9 times out of 10 a wargamer wanting to customize a rule system wants to create house rules, modify the flow of the game, introduce new units and so on. Some game systems are quite flexible (the already cited Frostgrave, but also Hail Caesar! or Black Powder), others are more rigid, so to speak (Bolt Action, Tomorrow's War).

AoS is...well, not really designed with passion - at least IMHO. It's simple (and that's good) and it can be customized with a little work rule-wise, but it suffer too much from some kind of WHFB/WH40K rule legacy: it's the same old dish of "GW special", simply with the ingredients shuffled a little bit to pass it as a novelty. I hoped (really, really hoped) to see something more innovative considering it's a wargame developed in the timeframe between 2013-2015 and not in the '80s. It's way more flexible background-wise, but I suspect that this will change when more stuff will be introduced later on.

As I said in another thread, stuff like Frostgrave or Beyond the Gates of Antares should have been the new flagship of GW.

akai
11-12-2015, 14:57
Spot on. That's the kind of wargaming framework I was speaking about - not every rule system is scalable from skirmish to pitched battle and vice versa, but that's not the kind of "customization" everyone seeks...9 times out of 10 a wargamer wanting to customize a rule system wants to create house rules, modify the flow of the game, introduce new units and so on. Some game systems are quite flexible (the already cited Frostgrave, but also Hail Caesar! or Black Powder), others are more rigid, so to speak (Bolt Action, Tomorrow's War).

AoS is...well, not really designed with passion - at least IMHO. It's simple (and that's good) and it can be customized with a little work rule-wise, but it suffer too much from some kind of WHFB/WH40K rule legacy: it's the same old dish of "GW special", simply with the ingredients shuffled a little bit to pass it as a novelty. I hoped (really, really hoped) to see something more innovative considering it's a wargame developed in the timeframe between 2013-2015 and not in the '80s. It's way more flexible background-wise, but I suspect that this will change when more stuff will be introduced later on.

As I said in another thread, stuff like Frostgrave or Beyond the Gates of Antares should have been the new flagship of GW.

Frostgrave sounds good. I just thought comparing Age of Sigmar to Frostgrave was strange. Whether you think one is better at being a "framework" for its intended game purposes or not, I am just stating that the AoS books very much encourage what you quoted Nooblord as being spot on.

Another myth and reality!
Myth: We don't know what most of the races/factions in AoS look like.

Reality: Most of the races/factions in AoS look exactly like they did in Warhammer Fantasy. A good portion of Aelves look like Old World Elves. A good portion of Duardin look like Old World Dwarfs. A skeleton in AoS will...well, they look like Skeletons. A good portion of grots look like the Old World Goblins. A good portion of the AoS races look like the Old World counterparts because the same same exact models are being used to represent them.

Allen
11-12-2015, 15:46
Frostgrave sounds good. I just thought comparing Age of Sigmar to Frostgrave was strange. Whether you think one is better at being a "framework" for its intended game purposes or not, I am just stating that the AoS books very much encourage what you quoted Nooblord as being spot on

I'm not saying AoS does not encourage any kind of modification to its rule system, modding or whatever...I'm just saying that it's way less easily modifiable than some other rule system (Frostgrave, for example). And that, I fear, is inevitable: AoS is the brainchild of a designing studio that is trapped (or forced by corporate policies) into a ruleset that is becoming less and less appealing since its birth in the 80s. Every GW product is based on the same premises, rule-wise...while that greatly help the creation of a customer base that is not tied only to a single product, that can became an issue if the rest of the wargaming market start experimenting with different ideas and you remain stuck with concepts that were mainstream in the 80s and 90s.

Buddy Bear
11-12-2015, 15:53
You know what was a great idea? Combat Patrol for 40k. 400 point battles in 40 minutes. Of course, it didn't work as good as it could have because it had the 40k rules to work with and had to modify them, but it's a great idea. Start people off small so they could build up to bigger games later on. They should've tried turning that scale of 40k game into its own full-fledged game and done the same for Fantasy as well. Introduce a game closer in scale to Mordheim than standard Fantasy and which uses smaller forces from each of the main factions, with those models usable for those armies once you decide to move on to bigger games in Warhammer Fantasy.

Allen
11-12-2015, 16:39
You know what was a great idea? Combat Patrol for 40k. 400 point battles in 40 minutes. Of course, it didn't work as good as it could have because it had the 40k rules to work with and had to modify them, but it's a great idea. Start people off small so they could build up to bigger games later on. They should've tried turning that scale of 40k game into its own full-fledged game and done the same for Fantasy as well. Introduce a game closer in scale to Mordheim than standard Fantasy and which uses smaller forces from each of the main factions, with those models usable for those armies once you decide to move on to bigger games in Warhammer Fantasy.

That's actually a good idea: "tiering" a game system into skirmish, pitched and apocalypse level battles (all with the same ruleset, slightly modified to factor in number of models) is a good and easy way to promote more people in the hobby and increase sales. You start small, then expand until you're able to hit the point cap of a standard pitched battle...and then why not going all superheavy, titan and infantry companies?

You don't even need a separate game as a gateway wargame towards your main products: you simply develop two or three different version of the same rule system. For fantasy something terrain-heavy like Mordheim could have been interesting, for example.

akai
11-12-2015, 16:41
I'm not saying AoS does not encourage any kind of modification to its rule system, modding or whatever...I'm just saying that it's way less easily modifiable than some other rule system (Frostgrave, for example).

Sure, I don't know Frostgrave system or other game systems to make the comparisons that they are easier for modification. I do think AoS is actually very easy to build upon from what we have been provided. Since balance is not the priority of the AoS framework (a deal breaker for many), whatever is modify or added on top of the AoS should not really make the game less balance than what we were given.

Dosiere
11-12-2015, 17:07
AoS is a vehicle to showcase miniatures. That's it. The game is not about the game per se it's about the miniatures, full stop.

What GW has done is take something that we consider a positive about the hobby and GW in particular - the spectacle of quality miniatures fully painted on the table - and made it the point of an entire game system, stripping pretty much everything else aside.

akai
11-12-2015, 18:48
AoS is a vehicle to showcase miniatures. That's it. The game is not about the game per se it's about the miniatures, full stop.

What GW has done is take something that we consider a positive about the hobby and GW in particular - the spectacle of quality miniatures fully painted on the table - and made it the point of an entire game system, stripping pretty much everything else aside.

I agree the game rules were written for the miniatures GW have made. Whatever the intentions of GW are though (I think everyone would agree it is to sell miniatures for their settings), AoS as it is given to us, is first and foremost a game about fantasy battles. As i have written previously, I introduced AoS to my nephews and nieces to play with my collection of miniatures. When I visited them for the Thanksgiving holiday, I have found that they have proxy miniature figures with just square pieces of paper. Faces with pointy ears are the elves, faces with beard are dwarfs, faces with three circles are skeletons, cow face for the beastmen :D. Except for the once in a while sneezing causing the papers to fly all over the place -_-...for them, AoS was fun enough that they would actually cut little square pieces of paper. Of course, playing with miniatures would be more of a spectacle, just like any other games that use miniatures.

Dosiere
11-12-2015, 19:26
I thank you for missing my point.

akai
11-12-2015, 19:38
Dosiere - hmm, you are very welcome then! :D

Voss
11-12-2015, 22:11
Heh. Sounds like your nieces and nephews decided AoS didn't merit anything better than scraps of paper for figures. :evilgrin:

Spiney Norman
11-12-2015, 22:25
AoS is a vehicle to showcase miniatures. That's it. The game is not about the game per se it's about the miniatures, full stop.

What GW has done is take something that we consider a positive about the hobby and GW in particular - the spectacle of quality miniatures fully painted on the table - and made it the point of an entire game system, stripping pretty much everything else aside.

I think you're being a little unfair, AoS is a way of showcasing your miniatures (which I'm fine with actually as that is the main reason I play games), but it is also more than that. AoS is not a 'setting' as warhammer players would understand it in that the game is essentially 'time locked' in the present, it has history that has mostly always been historical and there are extensive descriptions about how the world looks and works in the present because that is where you are expected to set your games.

AoS is not like that, it's not a setting, it is an unfolding narrative. The world is not static and time locked, it is continuously moving, the setting is being progressively explored by the moving narrative rather than given to us on a plate. Available factions are currently limited because we haven't met them at this point in the story yet. Kind of like a TV series where you are progressively introduced to the various characters as the episodes go by rather than given a bunch of bios to read before you start watching.

I'm guess that at some point down the line we will get a book, or books which fill us in on where the story is up to, but I'm actually quit enjoying the moving narrative approach, it is different and interesting and keeps me guessing. Finding out more about the Duardin when they get released early next year is pretty exciting

akai
11-12-2015, 23:04
Heh. Sounds like your nieces and nephews decided AoS didn't merit anything better than scraps of paper for figures. :evilgrin:

To be very honest, I would not recommend them buying miniatures from GW anyway to play AoS. If they have fun with scraps of paper then no need for them to buy expensive GW products :evilgrin:

Ben
11-12-2015, 23:06
That's actually a good idea: "tiering" a game system into skirmish, pitched and apocalypse level battles (all with the same ruleset, slightly modified to factor in number of models) is a good and easy way to promote more people in the hobby and increase sales. You start small, then expand until you're able to hit the point cap of a standard pitched battle...and then why not going all superheavy, titan and infantry companies?

You don't even need a separate game as a gateway wargame towards your main products: you simply develop two or three different version of the same rule system. For fantasy something terrain-heavy like Mordheim could have been interesting, for example.

Gates of Antares by Rick Priestley, who wrote 40k, created the Lord of the Rings game, and was one of the big influences on Warhammer, does exactly this. It scales from 500 points to more than 3000 and what you can take in your army scales with it. At 500 points, you aren't bringing the tank equivalent stuff.

Allen
14-12-2015, 09:36
Gates of Antares by Rick Priestley, who wrote 40k, created the Lord of the Rings game, and was one of the big influences on Warhammer, does exactly this. It scales from 500 points to more than 3000 and what you can take in your army scales with it. At 500 points, you aren't bringing the tank equivalent stuff.

I know, and I love Priestley's works at Warlord Games...the only problem of his new game are the miniatures. Very particular aesthetic (except for Concord, a little too much iPod-ish IMHO), but poorly customizable. Personally, I think something like Beyond the Gates of Antares should have been the new flaghsip of GW - rulewise, of course, I'm not talking of background. Take BtGoA and sprinkle it with Ambush Alley system of action-reaction to get rid of the old "I go, you go" system and you have a very interesting and very solid wargame to throw into the market without fearing for its success or for competition.

Wishing
14-12-2015, 10:00
To be very honest, I would not recommend them buying miniatures from GW anyway to play AoS. If they have fun with scraps of paper then no need for them to buy expensive GW products :evilgrin:

I would agree that you should definitely not buy miniatures in order to play AoS. You should buy miniatures if you like the miniatures. Once you have the miniatures, you can then play AoS with them, if you want.

I feel like this is pretty core for the AoS philosophy.

CrystalSphere
14-12-2015, 10:13
I would agree that you should definitely not buy miniatures in order to play AoS. You should buy miniatures if you like the miniatures. Once you have the miniatures, you can then play AoS with them, if you want.

I feel like this is pretty core for the AoS philosophy.

Really? Where did you read this AoS philosophy? Because all i see on the GW AOS website, sorry i mean webstore, are CAD designed plastic miniatures at outrageous prices. Same or worse than WFB pricings were. I´d say the philosophy is more like: "you want to win? Use the best formation available. So buy X and Y."

Wishing
14-12-2015, 15:12
Really? Where did you read this AoS philosophy?

I didn't, that's why I wrote "I feel that..." rather than "I read that..."

Just an interpretation.

veterannoob
14-12-2015, 15:55
I'm a first time poster outside of the Black Library forums so pardon if this isn't the proper space for this, but I interpret it as a "myth" or extremely-common-to-my-hearing/reading phrase:)

"AoS needs scenarios, it doesn't work with battle line/pitched battle."

My group played AoS during its first couple weeks to try out AoS, using several different types of armies in the legacy PDFs put out for each army. Since we had zero knowledge of how AoS would work I took the suggested formations in the back of each packet as my experience w/GW suggests that's a fluffy or common force for a faction. In short, we needed scenarios and I wish they would have been present & abundantly clear from the week of release. But now we know, no harm done. "Battle line" was just terrible, although we had some fun moments. Week 3 after release there was a local event with drafted scenarios by the TO. At this point we started to see how this game could work, although point costs and any kind of comp aside, which yes, is supplied by the players. We used both a maximum number of wounds & minimum model count. Keeping up w/podcasts in N. America and Europe confirmed as the game was played more & more that it requires scenarios to work for any experiences they've encountered.

So I'm wondering from you guys, does AoS need scenarios (from GW or TOs) to work?

I'm in the fortunate position to be abroad studying for a year and "weathering the storm" while the community hashes out the WHFB vs. AoS. I just hope when I move back I have fun opponents to play against in AoS or KoW or whatever.

Thanks and look forward to your thoughts. :D

HelloKitty
14-12-2015, 16:32
Yes to me Age of Sigmar is a lot of fun with scenarios. Doing the pitched battle out of the core 4 page pamphlet is horrible IMO.

akai
14-12-2015, 16:58
I would agree that you should definitely not buy miniatures in order to play AoS. You should buy miniatures if you like the miniatures. Once you have the miniatures, you can then play AoS with them, if you want.

Agree 100%.


I'm a first time poster outside of the Black Library forums so pardon if this isn't the proper space for this, but I interpret it as a "myth" or extremely-common-to-my-hearing/reading phrase:)

"AoS needs scenarios, it doesn't work with battle line/pitched battle."

My group played AoS during its first couple weeks to try out AoS, using several different types of armies in the legacy PDFs put out for each army. Since we had zero knowledge of how AoS would work I took the suggested formations in the back of each packet as my experience w/GW suggests that's a fluffy or common force for a faction. In short, we needed scenarios and I wish they would have been present & abundantly clear from the week of release. But now we know, no harm done. "Battle line" was just terrible, although we had some fun moments. Week 3 after release there was a local event with drafted scenarios by the TO. At this point we started to see how this game could work, although point costs and any kind of comp aside, which yes, is supplied by the players. We used both a maximum number of wounds & minimum model count. Keeping up w/podcasts in N. America and Europe confirmed as the game was played more & more that it requires scenarios to work for any experiences they've encountered.

So I'm wondering from you guys, does AoS need scenarios (from GW or TOs) to work?

I'm in the fortunate position to be abroad studying for a year and "weathering the storm" while the community hashes out the WHFB vs. AoS. I just hope when I move back I have fun opponents to play against in AoS or KoW or whatever.

Thanks and look forward to your thoughts. :D

I think you would have more fun with using different scenarios/battleplans to play AoS. Scenarios/battleplans as simple as just changing the victory conditions for each army (a quick but significant change on how an army can achieve victory) can make pitched battle/battle lines to be fun/competitive to play I think.

dariusZero
16-12-2015, 12:12
Not sure if this corresponds with the thread tiopic, but this chart shows approximately the interest in Aos vs WHB. Make your conclusion.:


https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F03mf9x%2C%20age%20of%20sigmar&date=1%2F2015%2012m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1

2DSick
16-12-2015, 12:24
Not sure if this corresponds with the thread tiopic, but this chart shows approximately the interest in Aos vs WHB. Make your conclusion.:


https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F03mf9x%2C%20age%20of%20sigmar&date=1%2F2015%2012m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1

Excellent source. Good idea.

Can that be shot down for not being on a closed FB group?

Haha.

Holier Than Thou
16-12-2015, 13:46
Not sure if this corresponds with the thread tiopic, but this chart shows approximately the interest in Aos vs WHB. Make your conclusion.:


https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F03mf9x%2C%20age%20of%20sigmar&date=1%2F2015%2012m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1

Wow. That's pretty damning although I'm sure some noble crusader will be able to explain why this evidence doesn't matter either.

Zywus
16-12-2015, 13:52
People using google are a self-selecting group?
AoS players already know about the game, so they don't need to search for it?

Buddy Bear
16-12-2015, 13:53
People using google are a self-selecting group?
AoS players already know about the game, so they don't need to search for it?

The AOS fanbase clearly uses Bing.

StygianBeach
16-12-2015, 14:06
Excellent source. Good idea.

Can that be shot down for not being on a closed FB group?

Haha.

Agree, that is a good idea. Only problem I see is that I usually just type Warhammer when I search for WHFB and I usually misspell Sigma.

Regardless I would say it does say something about the 2 games.

akai
16-12-2015, 14:15
Not sure if this corresponds with the thread tiopic, but this chart shows approximately the interest in Aos vs WHB. Make your conclusion.:

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F03mf9x%2C%20age%20of%20sigmar&date=1%2F2015%2012m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1

Interesting, thanks for posting it. To put it into context of this topic...have anyone stated on Warseer that AoS is currently more popular than WFB? I agree that people actually believing AoS is more popular than WFB would be a myth.

Zywus
16-12-2015, 14:20
Interesting, thanks for posting it. To put it into context of this topic...have anyone stated on Warseer that AoS is currently more popular than WFB? I agree that people actually believing AoS is more popular than WFB would be a myth.
I don't think anyone has made that outlandish a claim.:p

There has however been plenty of posts made from people that seem adamant that it is totally unreasonable to draw the conclusion that AoS is failing (as in; sales and fanbase is worse off than WHFB before the end times). After all, GW hasn't opened up the books for the world to see and haven't made a official statement outright claiming AoS is struggling.

We can't yet tell whether Dreadfleet was a success or not BTW. At least I have never read any statement from GW or seen any official numbers concerning it's sales.

duffybear1988
16-12-2015, 14:33
Well in the case of WMH at least (I have no real knowledge of KoW), large swathes of No Quarter magazine are devoted to scenarios and mini-campaigns with a heavy narrative element, including new characters for use only in those scenarios to flesh out the backstory. Not something PP would be paying people to create if it wasn’t being utilised by a significant proportion of their customers.

There’s also an entire “creative community” section of their forums devoted to fan art, fiction, scenarios and the like which is very active.

You (amongst others) have been at great pains to point out that anecdote of poor reception of AoS by individuals in specific locales is not valid as a sign of how AoS is or isn’t more widely played. By the same token, your own experience of how WMH or KoW is played is an equally incomplete viewpoint.

This. Warmahordes has tier lists that are in many cases far weaker than just running a normal list. It's never stopped us playing to the theme at my club. Our last game involved trying to assassinate Irusk with a bunch of Llaese freedom fighting mercs. The game before that was an undead pirate raid (Ships in the Night tier list) on a Cygnar held port.

Buddy Bear
16-12-2015, 14:34
I actually have seen people claiming that AOS is vastly more successful than Warhammer Fantasy. It's possible, though, that some were in the Natfka comments section and not here.

Ayin
16-12-2015, 15:00
We can't yet tell whether Dreadfleet was a success or not BTW. At least I have never read any statement from GW or seen any official numbers concerning it's sales.

Dreadfleet was a long term investment for GW. You can't tell it's success right away because it relies on bringing in a new generation of "collectors" and it takes time to grow that base. Most importantly, Dreadfleet offers a variety of high quality GW models for players and collectors alike, so lack of apparent interest in communities like online message boards and (pfft...) local gaming stores is no evidence of it's success or failure, as it wasn't made for hardcore, win at all costs players like those who go places to play or talk about playing games.

Zywus
16-12-2015, 15:08
Dreadfleet was a long term investment for GW. You can't tell it's success right away because it relies on bringing in a new generation of "collectors" and it takes time to grow that base. Most importantly, Dreadfleet offers a variety of high quality GW models for players and collectors alike, so lack of apparent interest in communities like online message boards and (pfft...) local gaming stores is no evidence of it's success or failure, as it wasn't made for hardcore, win at all costs players like those who go places to play or talk about playing games.
Exactly:D

Also don't forget that Dreadfleet hasn't even been released for five years so far. We can't expect it to already compete with games that has 30 years of background already written.

Col. Tartleton
16-12-2015, 15:10
I bought Dreadfleet and I liked it. I consider it a success.

Zywus
16-12-2015, 15:15
I bought Dreadfleet and I liked it. I consider it a success.
If all of GW's future releases sold literally one copy to Col. Tartleton and not a single copy to anyone else I kinda doubt that they would consider that a success, so I'm not sure that's a reasonable definition of success in this context.

Allen
16-12-2015, 15:38
Wow. That's pretty damning although I'm sure some noble crusader will be able to explain why this evidence doesn't matter either.

That data actually matters a lot. Not sure why it was posted in this thread and not on the other one about sales, however.