Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/08/19 03:44:14
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I play kill teams, almost weekly. I also play planet strike, cities of death, the arena minigame from crusade of fire, and occasionally the old battle mission book...
Cool, im sure thats very common among GW players...
I too play Cities of death and kill team. The rules are nasty but they are a bit of fun with some work. But please don't try make out like it is common, because we all know it isn't common for people to play those.
2015/08/19 04:02:26
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
The Riddle of Steel wrote: Agree or disagree, this was an excellent post. Thoughtful, well-written, organized, and with some very good points.
I agreed with most, disagreed with some. But I enjoyed reading it all.
Thank you. I am relatively new to miniature gaming. I played Warmachine briefly when it first started, over a decade ago, but AoS brought me back. There's been a lot of anger surrounding it, which has made it difficult to engage in the hobby online when I'm not around friends to play it with. It's been frustrating to lurk without the ability to defend a game I find so interesting.
I'd be more than happy to discuss any points you disagreed with. That was more of a preliminary idea on what points really mean and I'm not sure all the thoughts are fully formed yet. Nothing would please me more than to talk about Age of Sigmar without someone suggesting it is for kids or too simple or a money grab by a greedy corporation or has space marines rip offs (they actually look like a cross between Helios, the Greek sun god, and Ares, the Greek god of war - not stormtroopers with oversized pauldrons). AoS is actually quite fascinating in how is skirts typical norms and makes you think about the hobby in a different way, and it's a shame people can enjoy that privilege without getting butthurt.
2015/08/19 04:55:19
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
If you take another game, the expectation is that if the points add up, the armies are equal, and therefore the fight should be fair. Therefore, people TRY to get as much mileage as they can out of whatever predetermined point size.
If I could just interject something here - in no way do points indicate any sort of balance. Point values are a constraint. Given this constraint (X number of points), efficiently create the most effective army that you can. When one person is quite efficient going against someone who in not so efficient, the game is in no way balanced at all. The constraint, however, is mutually shared, and thus both players have equal opportunity to equally create efficient army lists.
Spoiler:
Some people VERY much enjoy this challenge. I'd say that something like Warmachine (sorry, no experience with 40k) is largely built around army lists, and some people just go nuts creating stupidly efficient lists, and counters to other people's stupidly efficient lists. I played a 15 pt game with Khador where I had 9 models on the board, but my opponent had 26 Cryx models - all of which had oppressive synergy making them all tough and easily resurrected. That was not a balanced game, an no amount of skillful playing on my part would've resulted in a win.
The designers of Magic the Gathering design around 3 different gamer types - Johnny, Timmy, and Spike. Timmy likes to win big. Johnny likes to pull off combos. And Spike - Spike is summed up as winning 9 out of 10 games, but if he felt he should've won the 10th, he walks away unhappy. Since that article was written, they've added two more profiles, Vorthos (fluff integration) and Melvin (mechanics integration).
I don't know how much truth there is in those personality types, but I think the thing to take away from it is that there are different kinds of players who want different things from the game. There's no one true way to play that everybody shares. Everybody is drawn to games because of different things.
When people argue about how important points are, they aren't arguing about points themselves. They want some sort of constraint - any constraint - that puts the players on a semi-equal footing. It's not balance and it's not fair (especially when some players just download dominant lists from the internet, not even doing the work themselves). The constraint is a test of sorts. It tests how knowledgeable a player is of the game and their mastery of it. Creating an efficient list is just another battlefield that they seek victory upon. Even downloading a list, they still know how it works. They didn't invent the list, but they can still master it, thus proving they are worthy of it.
AoS has no points, and it isn't a lack of imagination that keeps people from accepting this. Points are a way to interact with the game, even while not playing (you can create lists on the toilet, you can't play 40k on it - or shouldn't). Points are a litmus test for mastery of the game's mechanics. Points are a challenge to overcome - one that you can compete with on a level beyond just moving little army men around. Not having those constraints removes a very large part of the game for some players (perhaps their favorite part), but it isn't about expectations of balance. In no way is it about creating fair games. Personally, I find points frustrating precisely because of these expectations of fairness.
Age of Sigmar is more like a toolbox. We can create new constraints and lay them on top of the game without breaking anything. We can even lay points on top of it. We can have a thousand different ways to do it, each different and useful in different situations. With no One Right Way(tm) of doing things, we can do it any way we want. That has to annoy people who seek efficiency - how do you minmax infinity? - but it makes for a game with a bunch of different futures for a bunch of different players - Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Vorthos, and Melvin can all find enjoyment in the Venn diagram, with those 4 pages of Age of Sigmar rules being the union they all share.
Sorry for that rant. I've just spent the last few weeks hearing about how important points are to the almighty Balance, and I disagree.
Thanks for the post. It's well put and largely, I agree with a lot that you say.
First of all, you are right: points are a constraint, rather than a balancing factor, and therein lies the balancing dilemma. In WMH or 40k, you're expected to create the most efficient army given the constraint of points, and this mechanism is problematic for some gaming types.
This, I don't quite agree with:
Points are a litmus test for mastery of the game's mechanics. Points are a challenge to overcome - one that you can compete with on a level beyond just moving little army men around.
It's correct to a point until you've mastered your wargame of choice, which, frankly, doesn't take long (mastering a wargame is nowhere near the difficulty of becoming skilled in chess, for example). But past that, points and army list test hardcore gamers' ability bend the rules, and if you are very skilled, break them completely. This wouldn't even be as bad if, after one person played a super-duper combination once, it didn't flood the internet and become the FoTM list. This is the Dark Side of the points system.
Where I love my points is that they are a constraint, and I like to see what I can build within that constraint -- even if I never play the list. In the same sort of way that I enjoy equipping Mechs and paying games that involve configuration and micromanagement. It just tweaks some nerd itch.
Very, very rarely do I use points as anything other than the starting point (pardon the pun) for where fairness starts.
AoS is actually quite fascinating in how is skirts typical norms and makes you think about the hobby in a different way, and it's a shame people can enjoy that privilege without getting butthurt.
Yes, it is very fascinating how it skirts the norms of wargaming. I really hope it succeeds
The major reason that it's not for me is not the points (though I do miss them). I think the game is pretty fun, but my most significant issues can't be fixed, unfortunately -- 1) I like scifi a lot more than fantasy in wargaming, partly because I find that scifi kits are more fun to model and 2) I like games with a lot more models than what AoS is optimal for.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/19 04:59:42
2015/08/19 05:59:06
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
If you take another game, the expectation is that if the points add up, the armies are equal, and therefore the fight should be fair. Therefore, people TRY to get as much mileage as they can out of whatever predetermined point size.
If I could just interject something here - in no way do points indicate any sort of balance. Point values are a constraint. Given this constraint (X number of points), efficiently create the most effective army that you can. When one person is quite efficient going against someone who in not so efficient, the game is in no way balanced at all. The constraint, however, is mutually shared, and thus both players have equal opportunity to equally create efficient army lists.
Spoiler:
Some people VERY much enjoy this challenge. I'd say that something like Warmachine (sorry, no experience with 40k) is largely built around army lists, and some people just go nuts creating stupidly efficient lists, and counters to other people's stupidly efficient lists. I played a 15 pt game with Khador where I had 9 models on the board, but my opponent had 26 Cryx models - all of which had oppressive synergy making them all tough and easily resurrected. That was not a balanced game, an no amount of skillful playing on my part would've resulted in a win.
The designers of Magic the Gathering design around 3 different gamer types - Johnny, Timmy, and Spike. Timmy likes to win big. Johnny likes to pull off combos. And Spike - Spike is summed up as winning 9 out of 10 games, but if he felt he should've won the 10th, he walks away unhappy. Since that article was written, they've added two more profiles, Vorthos (fluff integration) and Melvin (mechanics integration).
I don't know how much truth there is in those personality types, but I think the thing to take away from it is that there are different kinds of players who want different things from the game. There's no one true way to play that everybody shares. Everybody is drawn to games because of different things.
When people argue about how important points are, they aren't arguing about points themselves. They want some sort of constraint - any constraint - that puts the players on a semi-equal footing. It's not balance and it's not fair (especially when some players just download dominant lists from the internet, not even doing the work themselves). The constraint is a test of sorts. It tests how knowledgeable a player is of the game and their mastery of it. Creating an efficient list is just another battlefield that they seek victory upon. Even downloading a list, they still know how it works. They didn't invent the list, but they can still master it, thus proving they are worthy of it.
AoS has no points, and it isn't a lack of imagination that keeps people from accepting this. Points are a way to interact with the game, even while not playing (you can create lists on the toilet, you can't play 40k on it - or shouldn't). Points are a litmus test for mastery of the game's mechanics. Points are a challenge to overcome - one that you can compete with on a level beyond just moving little army men around. Not having those constraints removes a very large part of the game for some players (perhaps their favorite part), but it isn't about expectations of balance. In no way is it about creating fair games. Personally, I find points frustrating precisely because of these expectations of fairness.
Age of Sigmar is more like a toolbox. We can create new constraints and lay them on top of the game without breaking anything. We can even lay points on top of it. We can have a thousand different ways to do it, each different and useful in different situations. With no One Right Way(tm) of doing things, we can do it any way we want. That has to annoy people who seek efficiency - how do you minmax infinity? - but it makes for a game with a bunch of different futures for a bunch of different players - Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Vorthos, and Melvin can all find enjoyment in the Venn diagram, with those 4 pages of Age of Sigmar rules being the union they all share.
Sorry for that rant. I've just spent the last few weeks hearing about how important points are to the almighty Balance, and I disagree.
Thanks for the post. It's well put and largely, I agree with a lot that you say.
First of all, you are right: points are a constraint, rather than a balancing factor, and therein lies the balancing dilemma. In WMH or 40k, you're expected to create the most efficient army given the constraint of points, and this mechanism is problematic for some gaming types.
This, I don't quite agree with:
Points are a litmus test for mastery of the game's mechanics. Points are a challenge to overcome - one that you can compete with on a level beyond just moving little army men around.
It's correct to a point until you've mastered your wargame of choice, which, frankly, doesn't take long (mastering a wargame is nowhere near the difficulty of becoming skilled in chess, for example). But past that, points and army list test hardcore gamers' ability bend the rules, and if you are very skilled, break them completely. This wouldn't even be as bad if, after one person played a super-duper combination once, it didn't flood the internet and become the FoTM list. This is the Dark Side of the points system.
Where I love my points is that they are a constraint, and I like to see what I can build within that constraint -- even if I never play the list. In the same sort of way that I enjoy equipping Mechs and paying games that involve configuration and micromanagement. It just tweaks some nerd itch.
Very, very rarely do I use points as anything other than the starting point (pardon the pun) for where fairness starts.
AoS is actually quite fascinating in how is skirts typical norms and makes you think about the hobby in a different way, and it's a shame people can enjoy that privilege without getting butthurt.
Yes, it is very fascinating how it skirts the norms of wargaming. I really hope it succeeds
The major reason that it's not for me is not the points (though I do miss them). I think the game is pretty fun, but my most significant issues can't be fixed, unfortunately -- 1) I like scifi a lot more than fantasy in wargaming, partly because I find that scifi kits are more fun to model and 2) I like games with a lot more models than what AoS is optimal for.
Points are intended to be both a balancing factor and a constraint. Its not "either or." FOC was also intended as a balancing factor and constraint. 40k and WFB have both gone through a lot of varieties of attempting to find an effective method. Given the variables involved, one will never get a "perfect" balance, but if you give on it completely it has a net negative on the game. The majority of people play games expecting a fair set of variables within to work.
Both sides in chess have the same pieces. All players in monopoly start with the same amount of money. All players in risk start with the same number of armies.
Would football be as fun if both sides could put as many players on the field as they could hire? I contend that a game which doesn't even pretend to provide balance will never be as popular as one that does. Find me any successful game on the market right now that doesn't have a balance mechanic of some sort.
Even MTG has balancing mechanics for its tournament play, and it started as a "pay to win" card game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/19 06:00:49
2015/08/19 06:36:16
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
No, not at all, that is EXACTLY the goalpost. Let's make it WMH instead. I love the Victoria Haley model, and I love Stormguard and Stormblades. I want to make my army ENTIRELY with these models, and nothing else. Doing so would guarantee that I lose any pickup game.
I seriously doubt that. Haley is all kinds of nAsty, and always has game. I've seen stormnouns do extremely well, the silver line stormnouns offer great utility.
Thing is, in WMH, you have two or three list formats. If you are going into what you would regard as a bad match up, then don't use that list. Simples really. This list, against certain lightning spamming lists would be truly obnoxious. Spam lists like this, or butchers mad dogs of war can suffer from hard counters. This is not a bad thing.
(And by the way, you wouldn't be able to take a list only of those models. You need some jacks too.)
2015/08/19 07:40:18
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
No, not at all, that is EXACTLY the goalpost. Let's make it WMH instead. I love the Victoria Haley model, and I love Stormguard and Stormblades. I want to make my army ENTIRELY with these models, and nothing else. Doing so would guarantee that I lose any pickup game.
I seriously doubt that. Haley is all kinds of nAsty, and always has game. I've seen stormnouns do extremely well, the silver line stormnouns offer great utility.
Thing is, in WMH, you have two or three list formats. If you are going into what you would regard as a bad match up, then don't use that list. Simples really. This list, against certain lightning spamming lists would be truly obnoxious. Spam lists like this, or butchers mad dogs of war can suffer from hard counters. This is not a bad thing.
(And by the way, you wouldn't be able to take a list only of those models. You need some jacks too.)
I picked some units that I liked, not totally stupid models Victoria Haley is my favorite Warcaster.
But really, you're just making my point: in AoS, you can use whatever models you want, in an unbound fashion that makes 40k's unbound seem rigid and inflexible. As long as one of the two armies can be reduced in power to be equivalent in strength to the other, and the two people can agree to what is fair, it's game on. There are literally no other restrictions. Why is this a good thing?
Without any knowledge of the game (literally, never having even read the 4 page rules or a single warscroll) you can walk into a store, buy an armful of models you like, build and paint them, and play them. You don't need to understand synnergies between units, or their effectiveness, or the local meta, or what kinds of nasty your opponent might have. Worst case scenario: you'll have to take some of them out against some opponents, if their battle force happens to be weaker.
Best case scenario? You play against some people, learn the game more, and organically grow your army by picking and choosing better models that provide more synergies. As you improve, your opponent can also increase the power level of their army. When you play some weaker opponents, you'll have to take out some of your stuff. At no time do you have to feel guilty that your X points was badly spent, or that Y model is a waste of points or slots. And even when your army is much better, you can still include those really bad units, because they don't "cost" you anything; your opponent will just shrug and let you add them in, because it's a cool model you want to stick on the tabletop.
I can't overemphasize how appealing this method of army building is to some people -- for them, it far outweighs the "inconvenience" (in quotes, because some people don't feel it's an inconvenience at all) of having to cooperatively determine army fairness before the battle. Even more so since the people they run in to tend to be like-minded, and not be overly competitive, since AoS seems to attract that sort of player.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/19 07:44:27
2015/08/19 08:13:37
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
Talys wrote: in AoS, you can use whatever models you want, in an unbound fashion that makes 40k's unbound seem rigid and inflexible. As long as one of the two armies can be reduced in power to be equivalent in strength to the other, and the two people can agree to what is fair, it's game on.
I can't overemphasize how appealing this method of army building is to some people -- for them, it far outweighs the "inconvenience" (in quotes, because some people don't feel it's an inconvenience at all) of having to cooperatively determine army fairness before the battle. Even more so since the people they run in to tend to be like-minded, and not be overly competitive, since AoS seems to attract that sort of player.
Yup. I just got my head handed to me playing a special scenario game. Not only because I was rolling like crap and my dudes got slaughtered. Still a good game, even though the result was a total blowout.
I think you are absolutely right there. I don't know that we will see a hardcore tournament set for AoS, but I rather get the feeling we are at the start of a journey. The new Battletome next week will be interesting as an expansion...
But really, you're just making my point: in AoS, you can use whatever models you want, in an unbound fashion that makes 40k's unbound seem rigid and inflexible.
Only up to the point where the other guy doesn't like what I bring for whatever reason*, at which point I become tfg and have to change up what I bring, regardless of my likes and dislikes to suit them or never get a game in. Balance by social pressure aka bullying. No thanks.
*there have already been examples of the 'yeah I'd play you once and never again' type armies. So claiming you can play whatever you want is misleading at best and verging on intellectually dishonest. You are also still assuming the other guy is an enabler, who will let you get away with whatever you want. Competitive tfg has no interest in this game, but he is not the only species of tfg...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/19 14:36:10
2015/08/19 10:21:32
Subject: Re:Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
I think you are absolutely right there. I don't know that we will see a hardcore tournament set for AoS, but I rather get the feeling we are at the start of a journey.
We are at the start of a new game, actually. Thus, for sure, there will be more to come in the future.
Although I really doubt there will be truly something for "hardcore tournament"...all this noise going against "the competitive tournament mentality" doesn't come from nothing, after all.
2015/08/19 10:59:31
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
Herohammernostalgia wrote: On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.
It's perfectly possible to have a game where the scenario is unbalanced in-universe, but the players have an equal chance of victory. An example would be a "last stand" scenario, where one side has a big numbers advantage, or recycles destroyed units--but if they don't completely wipe out the defender in a time limit, they lose.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
2015/08/19 12:02:46
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
argonak wrote: Points are intended to be both a balancing factor and a constraint. Its not "either or."
Points are sort of a scenario creation device and are balanced in that both players are working within the same constraints. However, the games that they produce are rarely balanced except in cases where both players are equally adept at minmaxing them. I don't think points are particularly good at building balanced games, except in extreme cases. And I think most players aren't trying to create balanced games with them. By trying to create a more efficient army than their opponent, they are purposely aiming to create unbalanced games in their favor.
Given the variables involved, one will never get a "perfect" balance, but if you give on it completely it has a net negative on the game. The majority of people play games expecting a fair set of variables within to work.
I remember in the LEGO board games, LEGO said that the games have a high element of chance in order to give all players equal involvement in the game. When a player loses because of a dice roll, they take it less personally and are more willing to play again. I think the entire point of having dice in AoS, and other wargames, is to give just enough variance to victory that even a superior army and tactics is not a guaranteed win - and I think this is a good thing because it gives both players a bit of hope that they'll win.
But then, are the games balanced because both players have the same randomness to contend with? Or are they unbalanced because even the best skill has a chance of losing? I don't know. My point is that the introduction of the gambling element is purposefully put there to counterbalance superior army lists and tactics, not to support them. They balance the game towards enjoyment of both players, not creating a fair fight where superior skill always succeeds. Balance isn't always one thing, and decisions are made the undermine balance in one area in favor of others.
I contend that a game which doesn't even pretend to provide balance will never be as popular as one that does.
"Pretend" is the important part there. Balance is an illusion. Two players are unlikely to be equally capable in all ways. Even when they are equally tactically, they may differ in other capabilities important to the hobby. The Warmachine armies I play against are never painted, rarely assembled, and half the time, proxy units. Those players can still play the game, but there is no doubt that they are not engaging with the hobby in the most optimal manner. If one rewards painted models with victory points, that is balanced towards a superior experience at the cost of unbalancing a (presumably) fair fight.
Army creation constraints are there more to ensure a specific scale and diversity of units, which is beneficial to model purchases, but doesn't always result in fair fights. What is balance? Is it just a fair fight? Or does it represent the various fulcrums around which game decisions are made? I think it is the latter, but players have convinced themselves that it is all about fairness because it makes them feel superior when they claim victory.
Find me any successful game on the market right now that doesn't have a balance mechanic of some sort.
Age of Sigmar?
Seriously, I think one needs to look at AoS as a toolkit in which the players can provide a wealth of different options on top of it. As it stands, I think players can play just fine with like minded people for fun. But anything more than that will require support from the players - and that's not a bad thing. I think that's pretty good too. By not providing One Right Way of doing things, it allows for a greater variety of systems, each tailored to specific player desires. Magic has a half dozen different deck building systems, but most players just stick to the tournament rules because those are the One Right Way. If GW never uses the same tournament rules twice, players have the freedom to create and use whatever systems they like the most - and can freely switch between them.
2015/08/19 16:46:34
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
But really, you're just making my point: in AoS, you can use whatever models you want, in an unbound fashion that makes 40k's unbound seem rigid and inflexible.
Only up to the point where the other guy doesn't like what I bring for whatever reason*, at which point I become tfg and have to change up what I bring, regardless of my likes and dislikes to suit them or never get a game in. Balance by social pressure aka bullying. No thanks.
*there have already been examples of the 'yeah I'd play you once and never again' type armies. So claiming you can play whatever you want is misleading at best and verging on intellectually dishonest. You are also still assuming the other guy is an enabler, who will let you get away with whatever you want. Competitive tfg has no interest in this game, but he is not the only species of tfg...
You call the other guy an "enabler". Another group would call the same person a "social gamer".
The game works extremely well for balance when all people involved are social gamers, which is true of any game, but the point is: this game appears to be a strong draw for that type of gamer, because, as I said, it's impossible to play as any other type of game without making modifications, like adding a point system. So, your likelihood of meeting a like-minded person is just greatly enhanced, and that's as good a reason as any to choose a game.
Keep in mind that the more social gamer will be less interested in complex mechanics, large rulebooks, and victory-by-ambush, too; instead drawn to the more social aspects of gaming, the storytelling, and the models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: "Pretend" is the important part there. Balance is an illusion. Two players are unlikely to be equally capable in all ways.
This is very true. In addition: if you take two perfectly balanced armies in one scenario and put them in another, they may suddenly become lopsided. Points do not account for factors such as surface area (table size), line of sight, cover, and significant terrain with relation to the units that are being placed. For example, units which can ignore terrain penalties will cost a little more. Fair. But If there is no terrain of that sort, you're paying those points for nothing. Units which have long gun ranges are greatly penalized if packed buildings interrupt those firing lanes. Large and powerful units are greatly hampered if the map is urban, and the density of the buildings restrict their mobility.
My point is simply that a unit worth 100 points on a desert map might be worth 120 points on a really large desert map, and 60 points on a city map.
Then, in the interest of fairness, to accurately reflect synergies, the unit should really be more expensive if taken with certain other units that can create powerful combinations, and less expensive if taken by themselves. And THOSE synergies should be costed against the map, too. So in a 4x4 surface, a magical blast of 24" is much more significant than on an 8x12 surface.
At the end of the day, making a fight fair takes a lot more than saying, "this unit is better, and is therefore worth 1.5x that unit", which is essentially what points do.
Seriously, I think one needs to look at AoS as a toolkit in which the players can provide a wealth of different options on top of it. As it stands, I think players can play just fine with like minded people for fun. But anything more than that will require support from the players - and that's not a bad thing. I think that's pretty good too. By not providing One Right Way of doing things, it allows for a greater variety of systems, each tailored to specific player desires. Magic has a half dozen different deck building systems, but most players just stick to the tournament rules because those are the One Right Way. If GW never uses the same tournament rules twice, players have the freedom to create and use whatever systems they like the most - and can freely switch between them.
This is part of both the problem and the solution.
It's a wonderful game that attracts a certain player type and an awesome toolkit for people who want a framework to build something else. But it's a lousy game for people who just want an OOB game where they can meet up on Saturday to play constraint-based armies and just beat the snot out of each other without other considerations.
GW is making the bet that a game focused on attracting the former type is more profitable for them than just building another WMH-type game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/19 17:02:30
2015/08/19 17:44:08
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
Talys wrote: My point is simply that a unit worth 100 points on a desert map might be worth 120 points on a really large desert map, and 60 points on a city map.
My thinking on that is that you could potentially model that kind of difference with a point system. For instance, unit A is X points, unit B is Y points, and the synergy between them is Z points. Take just A, X points. Take just B, Y points. Take A + B, X + Y + Z points. That Z value is the missing component that allows for fair games... but then you have a list of synergy point values a mile long that would need to be updated with the release of each new unit.
It is by no means a perfect system, but I think AoS is the perfect toolkit to make an attempt at it. The special abilities of units are standardized by name (as near as I can tell, all "Sigmarite Shield" abilities are identical), so instead of saying unit A + (B or C or D or E), you could say unit A + any unit with "Sigmarite Shield". And you could standardize point values for the abilities themselves, such that any unit with Sigmarite Shield gets the same bump up in points. It would be an interesting effort, I think, but I have no idea how complicated or interesting it would make the resulting effort feel.
This is part of both the problem and the solution.
It's a wonderful game that attracts a certain player type and an awesome toolkit for people who want a framework to build something else. But it's a lousy game for people who just want an OOB game where they can meet up on Saturday to play constraint-based armies and just beat the snot out of each other without other considerations.
GW is making the bet that a game focused on attracting the former type is more profitable for them than just building another WMH-type game.
I think the game is perfectly playable out of the box, but I'm more okay with ambiguity - most of the time, the intent is dead obvious and the people who argue against it do so with extreme, impractical edge cases that probably will never happen (what if I had 7,000,000 demon models to summon?). In cases where the vagueness does impact gameplay, there is usually one answer which is obviously more fun, fair, and sportsman-like (double swords doing twice the attacks AND getting to reroll ones? That seems a bit disproportionate, doesn't it?). Ambiguity is frightening to people who play games for the purpose of creating efficiency, but while obvious isn't the same as explicit, it's pretty close in my book.
I think that maybe the open toolkit approach to Sigmar may alienate players accustomed to a specific way of playing, but they would easily be welcomed back to the fold once a suitable replacement is found. In other words, it is only alienating right now. It won't be a year from now. Traditions will be made, new manners of understanding will be found and shared, and after the newness has been replaced with some level of familiarity, it will once again be a comfortable places. Things that are ambiguous now will eventually be figured out. Those weird edge cases that never happen, will have comforting limits placed upon them.
Basically, I'm saying that because AoS is new, it is not fully understood, and that's frustrating to players who are accustomed to being masters of a game. AoS won't always be new, and that frustration will dissipate with familiarity.
2015/08/19 18:03:44
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
You call the other guy an "enabler". Another group would call the same person a "social gamer".
.
Twisting my words talys. -1 for you
Your still assuming the 'social gamer' on the other side of the table is going to let you put down whatever you want and acquiesce to your every desire. What happens when thry say 'no', or 'they don't want to play that', which goes back to your original point (nice attempt to deflect and goalpost move by the way*) of aos being a game where 'you can play whatever you want'. Which, clearly it isn't. It's a game revolving around self limiting and self policing, social accords and jumping through moral hoops to define what's acceptable and what's not. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not the total freedom you claim it it.
* let's also not forget the goalpost shifting after your claim that taking a haley and stormnouns army would see you lose 'any' pick up game was rubbished. You've kept quiet there mate.
The game works extremely well for balance when all people involved are social gamers, which is true of any game, but the point is: this game appears to be a strong draw for that type of gamer, because, as I said, it's impossible to play as any other type of game without making modifications, like adding a point system. So, your likelihood of meeting a like-minded person is just greatly enhanced, and that's as good a reason as any to choose a game.
.
I fear It's also a draw for the 'casual at all costs' and the 'anti competitive' crowd who frown at anyone else having cool toys. You know the type - they hate all aspects of 'competitive play' which usually translates to 'how dare the other person play with cool toys!' because that's broken and tfg. Social tfg, in other words. I suspect, given time, this section will make itself known, and will make an unwelcome section of the plsyer base. Time will tell though.
And you are incorrect. I know plenty 'social gamers' that have absolutely no interest in aos. It's no more a strong draw for 'that type' of social gamers as any other game out there. What it is a draw for is people who want a very light, very simple game where you can essentially shuffle things together without thinking to hard. As wargames go, especially when compared to some of the other, far more detailed and intricate games, Aos is not far from 'dipping your toes in the water' for the most part.(I jokingly refer to aos as a wargame for non wargamers, though I suspect I am not necessarily wrong in my appraisal, considering a lot of the people I see being drawn to it). This is not a bad thing. This is not a criticism. I suspect there is a valid target audience for this game, and yes, I do think the game has 'value', and a place in the hobby as a whole.
I like highly detailed and intricate games like infinity and warmachine. The depth of knowledge required to do well, the intricacies, the fact that there is so much going on is a huge draw me and others and is a massive turn off others. Again,This is not a bad thing. In this sense, aos is almost the polar opposite to what I consider to be a good draw. But it is these same features thst repel me that will draw others in,
Keep in mind that the more social gamer will be less interested in complex mechanics, large rulebooks, and victory-by-ambush, too; instead drawn to the more social aspects of gaming, the storytelling, and the models.
.
You know, most of the warmachine players I know like the complex mechanics and large rulebooks in equal measure to the social aspect (aka beer)" storytelling and pretty models. It's not an aos thing. And you are displaying a bit of a skewed view of the playerbases of other games. I don't appreciate these generalisations, I find them inaccurate and crude.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2015/08/19 21:30:16
2015/08/19 23:33:26
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
chnmmr wrote: Currently its A** of Sigmar, and that suits us just fine.
Or Age of Stigma for another politer alternative.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2015/08/19 23:38:53
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
I fear It's also a draw for the 'casual at all costs' and the 'anti competitive' crowd who frown at anyone else having cool toys. You know the type - they hate all aspects of 'competitive play' which usually translates to 'how dare the other person play with cool toys!' because that's broken and tfg. Social tfg, in other words. I suspect, given time, this section will make itself known, and will make an unwelcome section of the plsyer base. Time will tell though.
I think that it is more like "how dare you put your cheesy victory above a friendly, enjoyable game". A competitive player, by definition, is selfish.
I'm new to the mini-wargaming scene, but I've read a half dozen editorials recently about the "tournament player" versus more social, cooperative players. There is a very real divide in the gaming community between these different mindsets, and at times it feels like a battle for the very soul of wargaming. While I don't think AoS is diametrically opposed to tournament play, by purposely ignoring it, it does make a interesting statement about the type of players it is, at least initially, courting.
And you are incorrect. I know plenty 'social gamers' that have absolutely no interest in aos.
I'm assuming they aren't hanging around Age of Sigmar forums telling everybody how crap it is, though.
It's no more a strong draw for 'that type' of social gamers as any other game out there. What it is a draw for is people who want a very light, very simple game where you can essentially shuffle things together without thinking to hard.
I don't think AoS is actually that light or simple. There's a 3" radius around every figure that represents an implicit zone of control that can not be entered or crossed by enemy figures (except to charge in and engage in melee). This makes controlling the battlefield through position very possible and very interesting. On a table with a lot of terrain features, how you maneuver your units will absolutely be more important than the number or type of them. But it is not explicitly stated and nowhere in the 4 pages of rules does it even suggest the ramifications of the zone of control. So, it must be a light, simple wargame - like Chess or Go, right?
I like highly detailed and intricate games like infinity and warmachine.
I play, and enjoy, Warmachine, myself. In fact, I have five armies for it. While I would say that Warmachine is a more complex game than AoS, I'm not sure I would say it is more tactically interesting. Warmachine is largely decided by the armies you use, not really how you use them (since how you use them will also be dictated by the army's make up). Pretty much anything you can do, there are dozen ways to ignore it. Cover? This unit ignores cover. Create a shield wall? This warcaster can cast a spell allowing units to walk right through it. Hide one unit behind another? If it has a bigger base, it can't hide. Each warcaster has some stupidly overpowered feat they can pop which does something like make every nearby unit stationary (and thus automatically hit by melee weapons). And so on. Warmachine is all about building armies which negate your opponent's armies, which makes for tactically uninteresting gameplay. I still love the game though. Just in a different way.
I do agree that Warmachine players are more interested in the complexity of the game itself, which is why so few of them appear to fully engage the hobby. I have a group of about 8-10 people I play Warmachine with every weekend, and I'm the only one with painted figures. They also play without any notable terrain, outside of a token forest area that they never actually go into and instead "toe" the edge to gain the bonuses without having to put up with the drawbacks. Actually, that makes a good metaphor for Warmachine players. They just "toe" the hobby.
2015/08/19 23:50:24
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
@Deadnight - I've actually been *working* today (gasp). Not much time to post Must keep it brief. If you'll notice, my post volume today is woefully small
In my local scene (which is very competitive), Haley and primarily stormguard/blades would get stomped. Like, 9/10 games. Of course, 75%+ of lists being hypercompetitive in the extreme in WMH here, doesn't help (but that, along with 75% unpainted armies plus 20% crappy painted armies and 0% nice terrain tables is a reason I'm not crazy about pickup WMH games). I don't know about your scene but the pickup scene here for WMH really exemplifies Win at All Costs -- and most people aren't brilliant strategists; they just know how to go to PP's forums and buy the lists that are most complained about at any given time. Not that I've been to a ton of WMH nights, and not that I've even played WMH in a very long time. They're just things I've wandered into here and there because I happened to be at the store, and watched for fun.
But that wasn't my point -- I was only using those models for an example. Again, in AoS you can pick ANY models, and the rules even encourage you to (I mean, it actually says this in the rules!). In WMH, the game encourages you to, you know, read the rules first, if you enjoy winning. Like most other games.
Enabler comment -- your word, not mine. I don't think I took it out of the context that you used it, and I AGREE. You think that some players feel that a player that will dumb down their army to the lowest common denominator of their opponent is enabling them to play with a crappy army. I'm sure many people feel this way, and would prefer to encourage the other player to simply make a better army, because after all, "my fun is playing my effective army."
AoS is designed, at least OOB, to support the OTHER type of player, who would prefer to play two BAD armies than to play their own, meticulously planned, effective army.
I also know social gamers with no draw to AoS. I'm saying that there ARE social gamers with a draw to AoS, not that ALL social gamers are drawn to AoS.
I am not using the term "social gamer" as a positive, and I am not trying to deride any other group. Perhaps it's a bad term. Call it whatever you want, "AoS gamer", then. AoS gamers will be drawn to storytelling, models, and social aspects of gaming; and unlikely to be drawn towards complex aspects that are a draw for WMH gamers. In the context of what I was using, I meant social gamer as an almost exclusively social gamer, not just a gamer who is social, and I'm sorry for using a word that makes it seem like competitive and quasi-competitive gamers can't be social (because obviously, they can!) or that they are anti-social (which most aren't).
I think it's GOOD to have a game designed for another kind of gamer, even if that kind of gamer isn't particularly me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: I'm new to the mini-wargaming scene, but I've read a half dozen editorials recently about the "tournament player" versus more social, cooperative players. There is a very real divide in the gaming community between these different mindsets, and at times it feels like a battle for the very soul of wargaming. While I don't think AoS is diametrically opposed to tournament play, by purposely ignoring it, it does make a interesting statement about the type of players it is, at least initially, courting.
To be fair, in the real world, there are a LOT more people in between than Dakka would have you believe
But the nature of the group makes so much of a difference. If you're in a group that is highly competitive, all it takes is for one person to download a netlist and start the path of hyperoptimization, and everyone will do so. If you're in a group that is more casually oriented, such a person is shunned, and doesn't dare bring their netlist again because everyone thinks they are an ass. Or they're warned, "don't be an ass or we'll boot yours".
I think there are plenty of people in my 40k scene who enjoy competing without trying to totally break the rules.
I totally agree with your comment about its draw to the people it courts -- and I generally really like playing with this type of player. At this point in my life, on the tabletop, someone who wants to try different things and have fun with a much smaller emphasis on "who wins" is just a better match for me, as I see the opposite of that better suited for the PC (which I enjoy immensely).
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2015/08/20 00:05:48
2015/08/20 05:33:48
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
In a filthy casual and I love Warmachine and dislike AOS. Nothing that has been stated as a positive for AOS is unique to it and can be applied to almost every other game.
Its a game for people that don't want to think. I happen to enjoy thinking about my games.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
2015/08/20 06:36:43
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
I think that it is more like "how dare you put your cheesy victory above a friendly, enjoyable game". A competitive player, by definition, is selfish.
Define 'cheesy victory'. Define 'friendly enjoyable game'. What is friendly and enjoyable in my mind is tfg cheese to another,
And no, competitive players are not selfish. No more than a lot of casual players whose attitudes boil down to 'how dare the other guy play with cool toys. It's unfair!'
A lot of gamers are selfish, smug, self entitled, self interested and self centred full stop, regardless of where on the spectrum they are. I know competitive tfg's and I know casual at all costs tfg's. All are selfish and want the game to revolve around them.
I'm new to the mini-wargaming scene, but I've read a half dozen editorials recently about the "tournament player" versus more social, cooperative players. There is a very real divide in the gaming community between these different mindsets, and at times it feels like a battle for the very soul of wargaming. While I don't think AoS is diametrically opposed to tournament play, by purposely ignoring it, it does make a interesting statement about the type of players it is, at least initially, courting.
.
And a lot of people's definition of 'tournament player' is akin to A Saturday moning cartoons villain. Lots of projection, exaggeration, hyperbole and myth. I used to think the same thing when I played gw games exclusively. Then I got into games that freely allowed a more competitive slant, (where playing your best wasn't seen as a bad thing, unlike certain sections of the 40k playerbase I encountered where winning is a sin, it's almost implied you have to apologise when you win, and wins should almost be by accident) like WMH, and got into more competitive sports in real life and really 'pushing myself', and I realised 'competitive' isn't the monster it's made out to be by certain sections of the community.
I don't think its a divide personally. It's a different way of doing things. like how I can run marathons. And box. I play competitive games. I play tournaments. Love them. I love havig a whole day of gaming and really pushing it as far as I can. It's also a great way to meet all the folks that travel from hundreds of miles away and embrace the community as a social gathering. I know plenty people that use tournaments as a way to cram as much gaming intoa day as they can, (wife, kids etc) and just to catch up with old friends. I also play social, cooperative games in the vein that aos encourages. Every Friday night. Points limits? Pfft. Book based scenarios? Pfft. It'll always be an interesting scenario, with a gm, a 'fog of war' and armies that are less designed for power and more for 'is it appropriate, given the context of the scenario and the historical/fictional historical narrative and conditions present at that time). In other words, 'typical' armies, rather than power builds.
What it is, more than anything is unfamiliarity with different approaches. Take talys. He gets a lot of flak (some he deserves in my mind, but let's not snipe here...) from a lot of the posters, but I'm pretty certain if any of us would play him, and play his 'style' of games, We'd have an absolute blast. I'm certain if I had a player group like his, I'd still also play 40k In my mind. It's also partly a lack of organisation, a lack of will and a lack of willingness to do anything. A lot of gamers are very lazy. In my experience. Too many would rather sit back and complain on dakka, rather than be proactive and change the games they play, and how they play their games. And to try different ways of doing things. Which feeds into the 'but it's different to how we play, so it's wrong and cannot work' mentality that you see sometimes.
And you are incorrect. I know plenty 'social gamers' that have absolutely no interest in aos.
I'm assuming they aren't hanging around Age of Sigmar forums telling everybody how crap it is, though.
Nope. But we've talked about it in real life over a few beers, and the views are generally negative, but with the caveat that 'it's got value for some, but it's not the type of game I'm interested in'. For me, the great sin of aos is a lack of interesting gsme mechanics.it would have been far more interesting to have been built on gw's lotr engine IMO.
It's no more a strong draw for 'that type' of social gamers as any other game out there. What it is a draw for is people who want a very light, very simple game where you can essentially shuffle things together without thinking to hard.
I don't think AoS is actually that light or simple. There's a 3" radius around every figure that represents an implicit zone of control that can not be entered or crossed by enemy figures (except to charge in and engage in melee). This makes controlling the battlefield through position very possible and very interesting. On a table with a lot of terrain features, how you maneuver your units will absolutely be more important than the number or type of them. But it is not explicitly stated and nowhere in the 4 pages of rules does it even suggest the ramifications of the zone of control. So, it must be a light, simple wargame - like Chess or Go, right?
Chess it is not. lol Well it doesn't sound any different,vor offer anything different to any other wargame that I know, or play to be fair. positioning being important. Ok... Never seen thst before... Terrain and manoeuvre. Ok... Gasp! Why hasn't this been Done?
It also has rules where i wound a dragon as easily as a goblin and where I get a rerollvfor having a beard or making noises.
Now compare it to the intricacies allowed by the details in games like infinity. So yes, it is a light, simple wargame with a very basic engine. This is not a criticism.
I like highly detailed and intricate games like infinity and warmachine.
I play, and enjoy, Warmachine, myself. In fact, I have five armies for it. While I would say that Warmachine is a more complex game than AoS, I'm not sure I would say it is more tactically interesting. Warmachine is largely decided by the armies you use, not really how you use them (since how you use them will also be dictated by the army's make up). Pretty much anything you can do, there are dozen ways to ignore it. Cover? This unit ignores cover. Create a shield wall? This warcaster can cast a spell allowing units to walk right through it. Hide one unit behind another? If it has a bigger base, it can't hide. Each warcaster has some stupidly overpowered feat they can pop which does something like make every nearby unit stationary (and thus automatically hit by melee weapons). And so on. Warmachine is all about building armies which negate your opponent's armies, which makes for tactically uninteresting gameplay. I still love the game though. Just in a different way.
So having a zone of control in aos and terrain you have to manoeuvre around offers 'ramifications' but all the tricks, the depth of plays, and intricate moves you can pull in WMH is not 'tactically interesting'. Ok...
I disagree with the rest. How you use your army is extremely important. It's got less to do with what you take and more with how you use what you take. 'Warmachine is decided by the army you use, but not how you use them, because how you use them depends on what you take'. Um, what? This makes no sense. Armies don't play themselves.
If you are trying to say,it's about how you use the tools you've brought with you to the best effect, ie how you use what you take is extremely important, then you are actually saying the exact opposite of what you claim you are saying.
'Warmachine is about building armies which negate your opponents armies, which makes for tactically uninteresting gameplay'. Except that's the whole bloody point. And no,vits not uninteresting. You have to play it right. It's called clever play. You know -using clever tactics and abilities,vpositioning and unit resources to confound, outmanoevre, engage and eliminate your opponents pieces in a wargame and all the time, he's trying to do the same to you, and deny you yours? you call this uninteresting? How else are you going to take them on and best them, if not use every tool at your disposal the best way you can? It's not like these are also similar to features in every other wargame out there. What utter rubbish.
Feats are stupidly overpowered? thats their point bud. As for sorscha's feat - it's fun, but come on mate. There's ways to mitigate it.
And How is it 'tactically uninteresting' when there are counters to your plays? Heaven forbid your opponent can actually do something, and counter your tricks,cand bring some of his own, and you can't just take things for granted, and it's not just an easy mode jaunt for you where you can go round lolstomping and your opponent has no game to your uncounterable trick. The thing with WMH is there is no master trick that you can rely on or hide behind. There is no ultimate weapon or perfect plan, There is no immunity: opppnent. Ultimately, someone can get through it.
I do agree that Warmachine players are more interested in the complexity of the game itself, which is why so few of them appear to fully engage the hobby. I have a group of about 8-10 people I play Warmachine with every weekend, and I'm the only one with painted figures. They also play without any notable terrain, outside of a token forest area that they never actually go into and instead "toe" the edge to gain the bonuses without having to put up with the drawbacks. Actually, that makes a good metaphor for Warmachine players. They just "toe" the hobby.
Uh huh. Keep projecting. All my models are painted and most of the people I play against paint extremely well and enjoy conversions.
I've got a go to list of awesome conversions I'm tempted to post here. It's a lie thst WMH players don't fully engage the hobby. Plenty do. And I know plenty 40k players thst never plsy with anything more than 'grey legions'. Take home message: it's not a WMH thing. It's a lazy gamer thing.
In my local scene (which is very competitive), Haley and primarily stormguard/blades would get stomped. Like, 9/10 games. Of course, 75%+ of lists being hypercompetitive in the extreme in WMH here, doesn't help (but that, along with 75% unpainted armies plus 20% crappy painted armies and 0% nice terrain tables is a reason I'm not crazy about pickup WMH games). I don't know about your scene but the pickup scene here for WMH really exemplifies Win at All Costs -- and most people aren't brilliant strategists; they just know how to go to PP's forums and buy the lists that are most complained about at any given time. Not that I've been to a ton of WMH nights, and not that I've even played WMH in a very long time. They're just things I've wandered into here and there because I happened to be at the store, and watched for fun.
So basically. Yet again you are projecting 'your limited experiences of your local scene' onto the WMH playerbase as a whole.
But that wasn't my point -- I was only using those models for an example. Again, in AoS you can pick ANY models, and the rules even encourage you to (I mean, it actually says this in the rules!).
But I can't pick 'any' models because it entirely depends on the other guy on the other side of the board enabling me by saying 'yes, I will play that!' That I can pick 'any' model and play with it falls down the second the other guy says 'no'. Which is the point you have yet to accept and acknowledge. And yet again, tangents..
Enabler comment -- your word, not mine. I don't think I took it out of the context that you used it, and I AGREE. You think that some players feel that a player that will dumb down their army to the lowest common denominator of their opponent is enabling them to play with a crappy army. I'm sure many people feel this way, and would prefer to encourage the other player to simply make a better army, because after all, "my fun is playing my effective army."
It was the point you were trying to twist, not the word.
Enable = 'yes I will play that'. Is a requirement for a game where, as you claim 'allows you to play anything'. You need an opponent to say 'yes'. When they don't. You don't get to play with your toys. Which goes directly against the idea of being able to play 'anything' as you claimed. Which is the point you have yet to accept or acknowledge.
And tangents. I'm not talking about dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. I'm talking about tfg opponents who will complain about any nice toys you bring. Who will only let you play 'bad' stuff, rather than 'similar' stuff. Because it's 'fair'.
AoS is designed, at least OOB, to support the OTHER type of player, who would prefer to play two BAD armies than to play their own, meticulously planned, effective army.
Which is all well and good, until you get an opponent who would prefer you to play a 'worse' army instead of a similarly 'bad' army. Casual at all costs, remember.
I also know social gamers with no draw to AoS. I'm saying that there ARE social gamers with a draw to AoS, not that ALL social gamers are drawn to AoS.
You kind of impliesd just that though talys.
So then how is it that it's a strong draw to 'that type' of gamer (your words) when both you, and I, and probably everyone else knows 'social gamers' that have no draw to aos. So your point is moot.
I am not using the term "social gamer" as a positive, and I am not trying to deride any other group. Perhaps it's a bad term. Call it whatever you want, "AoS gamer", then. AoS gamers will be drawn to storytelling, models, and social aspects of gaming; and unlikely to be drawn towards complex aspects that are a draw for WMH gamers. In the context of what I was using, I meant social gamer as an almost exclusively social gamer, not just a gamer who is social, and I'm sorry for using a word that makes it seem like competitive and quasi-competitive gamers can't be social (because obviously, they can!) or that they are anti-social (which most aren't).
Then think about the words you use and say what you mean and don't just pluck random words from the air that are open to all sorts of interpretations.
Pretty much disagree with everything the OP said, particularly about the 'tactical' side of the game. Unit synergy is all well and good when well thought out and intended [see Malifaux and Warmachine], but I watched a batrep yesterday where a unit of ogres were causing a mortal wound to the attacking unit whenever they rolled a save of 4+, due to cover and stacking buffs. That smacks of lazy design.
If you want to play a game where there is a big scrum in the middle and you roll lots and lots of dice trying to get 3s and 4s then that's up to you. I'm a very casual player but would much rather play a game with a tight, balanced, well thought out ruleset such as Infinity than wasting my time on this gak. 'Casual' doesn't mean I don't also appreciate the tactical side of games, which is a distinction many seem to be missing. Tactics can be fun too. Rolling lots of dice isn't fun to me.
Granted, WHFB had its flaws and needed a complete overhaul but they came up with a turd, which I am sure will die a slow death over the next year or so. Glad the OP mentioned Space Hulk as if I wanted a 'casual', 'fun' game I would much rather play that.
2015/08/20 08:12:23
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
For me, the great sin of aos is a lack of interesting gsme mechanics.
This is, in fact, the first thing I'm looking for in board/miniature games. DzC, for example, which I think is an excellent game, would be just another generic move & pew pew game were it not for the battlegroup activation and transports(coupled with relatively slow units). These are the two things I think make DzC pop out from the crowd. The only mechanic in AoS I see as a little more different is the alternating CC combat in the melee phase. Time will tell if it is interesting enough on itself, will it be extrapolated more and if the game can forge a distinctive look based on it.
2015/08/20 11:28:12
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
AoS is a toolbox eh? *opens up an 8th ed army book consisting of a variety of units, characters and magic items with point costs allowing you to build a variety of forces.*
8th looks like a toolbox to me... infact any wargame with a variety of units and deployment options is a 'tool box.'
2015/08/20 11:28:54
Subject: Re:Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
I hate Warmachine to the guts, the artwork the models and the type of gameplay. I would sooner buy a hundred copies of the same sigmarine and paint them gold, wash them gold, drybrush them gold and highlight them gold than buy a single warjack. And I loathe sigmarines.
But saying AoS is more tactical or a better game is ridiculous.
Not to mention comparisions to chess. Jesus.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How could I look away?
2015/08/20 11:34:45
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
Anyway, just some rambling thoughts that are purely my own, and not intended to hurt anyone...
When Age of Sigmar first hit the shelves, there was a great deal of hand-wringing/arguments and general Internet-based attacks on the game and those happy to dive into it. Things seem to be settling down now, so I will venture this post forward; why I think it might be worth people taking a second look at the game and, if they have already adopted it, what else they can be doing with it.
So, warning: this is a pro-Age of Sigmar post!
Caveat: I know that you can do whatever you like with whatever set of rules you have. I know that. However, rules systems by their nature encourage you to act one way or another on the tabletop, and it is the natural tendencies of Age of Sigmar that I will be addressing.
Second Caveat: I am not saying everyone should play the games the way I do (in fact, it is probably better if some don't!). All I am saying is 'here is another angle, why not roll it around in your head for a bit?' If you don't like what comes out after that and you are happy playing the games you are playing, just ignore me!
It is Not Too Simple... Just four pages of rules? Well, that obviously has to be a game for kids, right? No adult could be challenged by just four pages of rules...
Umm, wrong.
As a full-time games designer, I can tell you that any idiot can make a huge, sprawling complex mess of a rules system. It is simplifying and streamlining rules that takes work. A lot of work. Two great examples of this would be Blood Bowl and Space Hulk - nice simple games, but not without their challenges.
What matters is the interplay between the mechanics and the involvement of players within that framework. But the rules sheet is not the full story. In fact, it is not even the game.
The rules sheet is just the jumping off point. The actual game is to be found in the Warscrolls and, especially, the Battlescrolls; there is more (much more) to this game than four pages. So, if you have looked over the rules sheet and thought there is not too much to get your teeth into - you would be right! However, you are looking at just the absolute core, not the full game. Imagine if someone had just shown you the to hit and wound tables in Fantasy Battle and the first page of the movement phase. There is obviously a lot more to the game, but that core material is pretty simple.
Also, consider this: by making the core material short, simple and (relatively) flat, GW now have the ability to update virtually any aspect of their game, at any time. This, incidentally, means the end of edition updates. They do not even need to update an army book - simply release a new Warscroll or revise an existing one...
Oh, and one more thing to be said - I was watching a couple of Youtube rants last night where a couple of gentlemen were constantly berating Age of Sigmar being aimed at kids. Really hate to burst anyone's bubble, but all Warhammer games are aimed at kids. If you don't think a 12 year old can get his head round Fantasy Battle in any edition then a) you are doing the kid a big dis-service and b) maybe, just maybe, you are forgetting the games you played when you were a teenager.
Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.
At the end of the day, what a four page rules system gives you is the ability to play the game rather than the rules. In other words, you will be worrying about whether your unit of Liberators will be able to withstand a third wave of Bloodreavers, rather than trying to work out whether a reform will put them those few millimetres out of the enemy charge arc.
... And There Are Plenty of Tactics Age of Sigmar is no less tactical than Fantasy Battle.
Now, I will qualify that.
In Fantasy Battle, deployment is paramount and the ability to think two, three or four turns ahead is vital - you need to know where each unit is likely to be (or needs to be) and manoeuvre appropriately. In 40k, this is important and a distinct advantage - though maybe a little less than in Fantasy Battle.
Age of Sigmar, with the relative mobility of units does tend more to the 40k side of things. However, tactics are not to be found in movement alone.
What is also of great importance is how units support one another or, as people often put it, the synergy between units. A unit of Dark Reapers is good. A unit of Dark Reapers with Guide on them and Doom on their target is positively lethal.
This is what Age of Sigmar brings to the table in lumps. Almost every unit in every force fits into a greater jigsaw puzzle in some way, and there are many hours to be had in figuring out the best way to do that. And when you have done that, start again, because there are so many other combinations.
Eldar in 40k (and, I would say, Elves in Fantasy Battle) work best when you get the right unit into the right place at the right time to face the right opponent. This is the central ethos, if you will, behind those forces, while other armies do similar things to perhaps lesser degrees. In Age of Sigmar, getting units to work together is paramount.
Combine the elements of unit mobility and unit synergy, and you have a very, very tactical game on your hands with a host of choices every turn.
Stress Relief the First This is a big one for me and, from some posts I have seen on various forums, I am not alone in this.
There is no 'stress' in Age of Sigmar - and this runs on two levels. First, I have not had one rules debate/argument/someone trying to push rules way too far at all in Age of Sigmar. Not one. Everyone understands the rules and just gets on with it. Any ambiguity in the rules set is so minor as to not be a factor (a caveat here - don't try to carry Fantasy Battle conventions with you, as you will run into trouble).
Fantasy Battle is a good rules set (and I should point out that my group is not only currently engaged in a long-running Fantasy Battle campaign, but we are about to start a brand new one - go High Elves!), but it is also a big, sprawling one. Not everyone remembers all the rules all the time, so it is not uncommon to briefly halt a game to look up or clarify some obscure part of the movement phase (it is almost always the movement phase). This causes pauses, interpretations and the occasional argument.
In Age of Sigmar, players have the core rules memorised within two or three games. Give it another two or three games to get that 'locked' in your head, and not only will you never need to go back to the rules again, there will be no rules debating during the game.
Stress Relief the Second The other side of the stress removal is the absence of points. Now, I have played all sorts of games over the past (gulp) few decades, but Warhammer-based games have always featured heavily. As time went on beyond the first editions, this meant points-based games and that meant competition.
Which was fair enough.
However, coming back to a no-points game has been something of a revelation, like you remember something you had once forgotten.
Points-based games mean competition. They encourage it. When you put together a Fantasy Battle force (or 40k, just as guilty), you are trying to put together an army, you will have a tendency to avoid certain units because, for whatever reason, they are not going to work out for you. I am not talking about sub-optimal units (we all include those in our forces) but the ones that you think are just plain bad. You want to put together a decent army that has a reasonable chance of winning, so you want to pick units that will help you do that.
And then (and this is crucial) when you play and lose with such an army, there is a feeling of disappointment, perhaps even failure - the sides were perfectly (yeah, I know) matched and you lost. You got it wrong. You cocked it up.
Age of Sigmar does away with points and, with them, the stress or 'need' to win.
Putting it another way, if you play Age of Sigmar, you will live longer!
Note: I like competitive gaming. I am good at it. But I like this game where the competitiveness is greatly muted.
Field What You Want This is related to the no-points angle, and it has also been raised on various forums.
In both Fantasy Battle and 40k, there are some very nice models that you may want (or already have) for your army but that will never, ever see any table time because the rules for them are just bad. Wyches for Dark Eldar, for example. Storm Guardians in Craftworld Eldar forces (I actually disagree with that, but perceived wisdom and all that). Medusae for Dark Elves. Some people even put Tactical Marines into this category, but I strongly disagree there...
It might get even worse when your army book gets updated and a unit that you once loved to used as been emasculated to the point where you can no longer bring it in a regular force.
With no points-based gaming, that does not matter. You want a wing of Warhawk Riders because you think they look stunning? Bring them along, there really is no downside.
In fact, if you you see a box of models sitting on the shop shelf that you quite fancy, you can now grab it, paint it, and put it straight onto the table without having to worry about its effectiveness or, crucially, without feeling the need to paint up another fifteen near-identical box sets to field a whole force.
Okay, that last might be a stretch. We are hobbyists after all...
Do Scenarios, Not Points Right, first thing here - there is no proper (and no wrong!) way to play any game, so long as you are having fun. There are no units of Gaming Police getting ready to break down your door because you converted Warhammer to a D10 system or whatever.
However, if you have just grabbed a bunch of Warscrolls and used the four page rules sheet, you might have done it wrong
Put another way, if you did that and did not have fun, then clearly something was wrong. But it may not just be the rules that let you down.
I could harp on about narrative but, fundamentally, Age of Sigmar is about a story. You have the wider story of Sigmar's Crusade, and there will be much more to come in campaign books and via the Black Library in the future. However, it is also a story about your army and what it is doing - either in the context of just a single battle or a whole campaign.
What this boils down to is forget playing with just the 4 page rules sheet and nothing else. Forget the various points-based balancing systems that are floating around (though that Laws of War does look pretty good at first glance!).
Pick a scenario from the hardback. Come up with a quick one or two sentence reason of why your army is taking part and why the enemy is your enemy. Perhaps go as far as deciding who the attacker is and who takes the role of defender before you start.
Next, come up with a reasonable force that you could see fighting it.
That is about all you need to do. Leave Tyrion, Archaon and Nagash at home, save them for the really special scenarios. Don't be a dick about the forces you pick. Just choose the units you think your commander in the field would really have at his disposal.
Then play.
If you do all that, you will have given Age of Sigmar a decent try. Maybe it is not for you. Maybe, if you had a disagreeable game, it was for you but not for your opponent. In which case try again.
But do try it. Scenarios (Battlescrolls) is where Age of Sigmar sits.
Incidentally, if it does work out for you, pick another scenario and play with similar (or even the same) force, and figure out how the two battles are linked. Then do the same after that game - before long, you will not only have a campaign running, you will have named your characters and they might even have started to develop personalities. If you are writing brand new scenarios to fit in with your storyline, you have nailed it.
A Different Class of Player Now, this bit could start an argument, but please bear with me.
I am not running anyone down here, nor am I attacking any style of play.
But.
Competitive (in this context, points-based) games attract That Guy. 90% of gamers are not that guy but, as a society, we always have to cater to the 10%.
That Guy wants to win, and is usually a bit of a dick about it, whether it is in attitude, rules-lawyering or army selection. When we do points-based games, we may meet That Guy. We may even, if we are truly honest, be That Guy for brief moments.
Age of Sigmar does not really encourage That Guy. There is little in Age of Sigmar that welcomes That Guy. That Guy may not look twice at Age of Sigmar.
Which is good news for the rest of us!
Basically, I am saying that when you play Age of Sigmar, you may have a better chance to play against people who just want to push some models around the table and maybe continue the story of their great warband and its leader. You may never meet That Guy.
This is not to say, of course, that you cannot do both styles of gaming. You can still play Warhammer Fantasy and Age of Sigmar.
I am...
You just bring a different style of play to both.
But... Sigmarines! But are GW not just trying to bring about a Fantasy style of 40k? Are the Hammers of Sigmar not just Ultramarines by another name?
Well, you can draw all sorts of parallels. At the end of the day it is still Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, and will still retain the look, feel and polish of other Warhammer games.
And yes, GW will push the Stormcast Eternals forward ahead of everything else because they bring the Awesome (YMMV, of course, but that is why other armies exist...).
However, this new background is only just starting. Think back to 1st edition Fantasy Battle or 40k, and how sparse things were then and, importantly, how they were built upon. You cannot, as a writer, just magically create a whole living, breathing universe. Like a fine wine, it takes time for a setting to fully awaken.
However, keep an eye on what GW brings out, in terms of background, over the next few months. They obviously have plans in this direction, for both characters and events.
The book in the starter set is really just a primer. The hardback adds a little more (the most fluff is in the scenarios section - read and play the scenarios!). Keep an eye on White Dwarf, as those articles are bringing to light aspects of the background that the books have not really touched upon yet. Read the Black Library novels and shorts - these, above all else, are bringing the setting to life at the moment.
And keep an eye on the range of hardbacks that start this week - if you are expecting huge blocks of rules and units, I think you may be disappointed. I think these books will be more about the storyline and scenarios (both in print and encouraging you to make up your own), and this will be where the heart of Age of Sigmar will lie. Not on the latest, greatest Codex and its killer units, but on the next stage of the story and how it can be played out on your table.
And what if you are not keen on the story? Well, there seems to be three main story lines being pushed right now (in three different realms) giving you three separate, though related, campaigns. And if they do not get you going - make up your own.
That, perhaps, is the real aim of Age of Sigmar.
We Ain't Seen it All Yet It really is okay to say 'I don't know.' It is also okay to say 'I am not sure about Age of Sigmar right now, I think I will wait.'
That may be the most sensible route between diving headlong into a new game and completely rejecting it out of hand (and playing just a couple of games with the four page rules sheet alone is still out of hand...).
The reason is that, aside from a few people at GWHQ, no one really knows yet what Age of Sigmar is going to be. Given what I know of GW though, we have not yet seen a fraction of what this game is going to be able to do. Big long campaigns? Siege rules? Gods on the battlefield? Underground warfare with interchangeable tiles to make new caverns and caves?
We just don't know.
For my part, I am quite excited at the idea of a (near) clean slate, of being able to explore the setting as it develops without the huge weight of baggage the Old World had (remember, I am still exploring the Old World, in both Fantasy Battle and Fantasy Roleplay, this does not have to be a binary choice!). I even changed my style of painting for the new game, though that might be going too far for some!
I guess what I am trying to say in a very long-winded manner is this.
* If you tried Age of Sigmar and have bought into the story-led, scenario-driven idea of gaming, great! I want you in my group!
* If you tried Age of Sigmar but thought it too simple, light or lacklustre, give it just one more try with the ideas above - there may be a little more to this game than was first shown to you.
* You do not need to choose between Fantasy Battle and Age of Sigmar, or competitive gaming and narrative gaming - you can do both. These games scratch different itches.
* You do not need to make your mind up yet. Check back in a while, maybe at the start of the New Year. There might be something in Age of Sigmar by that point that catches your imagination. Or maybe not.
No
In future, don't quote huge things and then have a one word answer. That's very spammy, motyak
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/20 11:56:38
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How could I look away?
2015/08/20 12:31:15
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
Deadnight wrote: Define 'cheesy victory'. Define 'friendly enjoyable game'. What is friendly and enjoyable in my mind is tfg cheese to another,
Any tactic or army composition which uses extreme edge cases in order to exploit loopholes in the rules in order to win an easy victory at the cost of playing a friendly, enjoyable game in the manner to which it was designed.
Basically, draw a Venn diagram. Two circles. One circle is everything that makes up a friendly, enjoyable game (the casual view). The other circle is everything that can be done to win the game (the competitive view). The intersection of the two circles is where people have fun together. But many competitive gamers expect the casual gamers to utilize the entire winning circle at all times (even when it is not what they want), and have no trouble playing outside of the "fun intersection" to win games against opponents who want to stay within it.
And a lot of people's definition of 'tournament player' is akin to A Saturday moning cartoons villain. Lots of projection, exaggeration, hyperbole and myth.
I used to think it was exaggerated too, but then I remembered that I've actually played games (not mini games, but card and board games) against these kinds of players. I don't think every "tournament player" is a goblin, and I think these goblins are more amalgamations than actual people, but those tendencies are real, and there's no doubt that some players are more goblin than not.
I think a competitive player can play another competitive player and have a great, friendly game. I don't think a competitive player can carry that same attitude into games with anybody else without there being friction, and I see that in the various mini wargaming communities I visit - even Warmachine. There was a thread in the PP forums recently about how the emphasis on tournament tendencies was potentially driving away players and creating a barrier of entry for new ones. I believe the thread was called something like "Dwindling players".
Again, there is nothing wrong with being competitive - when it is appropriate. But it is not always appropriate, and there are certain attitudes which are, if you'll excuse the term, toxic to the well being of the community. I think competitive players have a... let's call it "aggressive" way of expressing themselves, which makes them dominate discussions and communities, making their way the dominant concern of the game makers (or complaining VERY loudly and frequently, when their concerns are NOT the main concern, such as every Age of Sigmar thread ever). Seriously, competitive gamers are the only ones who will tell everyone within earshot how they are leaving the game for another one because a stat is slightly different than what they'd prefer.
I don't think its a divide personally. It's a different way of doing things. like how I can run marathons.
It is a different way of doing things, and in appropriate places, it is well met. I actually like playing competitive players, when I'm feeling sufficiently competitive, because I also enjoy that aspect of gaming. It's one of the reasons I like Warmachine. But there are times when competitive players are not cooperative, and their desires for the future of a game don't mesh with mine, and the resulting discussions end up less than civil.
In my mind. It's also partly a lack of organisation, a lack of will and a lack of willingness to do anything. A lot of gamers are very lazy. In my experience. Too many would rather sit back and complain on dakka, rather than be proactive and change the games they play, and how they play their games. And to try different ways of doing things. Which feeds into the 'but it's different to how we play, so it's wrong and cannot work' mentality that you see sometimes.
This comment fits in perfectly with my previous one. While your way of playing is okay and simply different, those who play in a manner unlike yours are lazy and lack willingness to try new things. They are wrong, while you are simply choosing a different approach. In a way, competitive players are like the conservatives of the gaming world. They believe that if you are not having fun, it is your fault because you didn't step up. You are poor because you want to be poor, and thus you deserve it. It's karma. But it could be that competitive gamers are the ones not willing to try new things, and their inability to play anything but competitive games at their peak proficiency is what makes the game feel lacking.
Well it doesn't sound any different,vor offer anything different to any other wargame that I know, or play to be fair. positioning being important. Ok... Never seen thst before... Terrain and manoeuvre. Ok... Gasp! Why hasn't this been Done?
I'm not aware of many wargames in which you can literally not move near opponents. Even charges can fail when you roll ones. This makes positioning a dominant strategy of area control - in a way, the units become moving, impassable terrain that you can use to shape the battlefield, and the ONLY way to pass them is to engage them in battle to remove them altogether. I think a lot of players, yourself included, are greatly underestimating how much the zone of control around models changes how the battles must be fought.
As this is already quite long, and this isn't a WMH thread, I'm going to skip commenting on that part. Let's just agree to disagree on that matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plumbumbarum wrote: I hate Warmachine to the guts, the artwork the models and the type of gameplay. I would sooner buy a hundred copies of the same sigmarine and paint them gold, wash them gold, drybrush them gold and highlight them gold than buy a single warjack. And I loathe sigmarines.
But saying AoS is more tactical or a better game is ridiculous.
Not to mention comparisions to chess. Jesus.
I didn't say that AoS was the better game. Warmachine has been around over a decade, with ten different factions (not including the various mercenary mini-factions) and has had at least one major revision of the rules to address deficiencies. AoS has a long way to go before it can compare. And unlike you, I love the Warjacks (just wish they were actually worthwhile in the game that is literally named after them).
I said AoS was more tactically interesting because the movement was more fundamental and impactful. WMH has very little maneuvering, as evidenced by the typical WMH player's irrational hate of using terrain. In fact, if you removed all movement from the game and just had two lines of figures fighting it out, Final Fantasy style, I'm not sure the game would be all that different.
The comparison was more intended to be Go, but I didn't think it was familiar enough and threw Chess in there as well. Go is a game about area control, where you win through position, not conflict. Chess is also a game of positioning where you can use threat ranges to control the field.
Finally, you can paint the Stormcast teal, if you want. I believe they are the angry ones (no doubt angry at being teal).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/20 12:48:41
2015/08/20 13:01:49
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
What killed AoS for me is my inability to utilize real world tactics; my undergrad work was in history with a focus on ancient Europe so I read a great deal of battle accounts. I could use these ancient (and sometimes more modern) tactics in WHFB allowing me to play historics but with Ogres (Ogre's make everything better).
AoS severely hampers my ability and has no flexibility for me to create a, in my mind, tactically valid force. The reason is that I need the tacit approval of my opponent to place units and it forces me to be "sensitive" to what models they bring to the table. I might have a force of Ogre "legionnaires" in mind with gnobblar auxiliary support and pincer wings of mournfangs but show up to play and the opponent I happen meet wrecks this by not placing enough forces to be competitive against my concept force. My fun is ruined and if I go ahead an place what I have in mind, his fun is ruined.
Where AoS fails to me is the required, unmoderated social contract that has to be negotiated either formally or informally before a game can even start. Yes, wargames are social in nature but where a points system excels is that everyone can show up with a 2000 point army and kind of know what to expect from everyone else; you can't do this with AoS out of the box and only if you create or use one of the unofficial comp systems. Rules moderate the social contract by pre-determining how much of a force you can bring (I'm not going to tote around my entire 10,000 pt force so that I can adjust on the fly for whoever I face).
There is no tactical depth. People can talk about zones of control like it's a new concept and didn't exist in 8th edition or TFGs. I never play tournaments but that doesn't mean I don't want a challenging game that I have the possibility to win or lose; it also doesn't mean that I don't want any direction at all in how to play the game. In my mind, a well-designed, clear ruleset benefits all players of any play-style. I don't like WM/H but I've always been impressed by how dynamic the rules are and the effort that PP puts into game balance.
I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base. Who knows, maybe in the future they'll find enough people who like this style of play, it's just not me.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2015/08/20 13:12:22
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
Deadnight wrote: Define 'cheesy victory'. Define 'friendly enjoyable game'. What is friendly and enjoyable in my mind is tfg cheese to another,
Any tactic or army composition which uses extreme edge cases in order to exploit loopholes in the rules in order to win an easy victory at the cost of playing a friendly, enjoyable game in the manner to which it was designed.
Basically, draw a Venn diagram. Two circles. One circle is everything that makes up a friendly, enjoyable game (the casual view). The other circle is everything that can be done to win the game (the competitive view). The intersection of the two circles is where people have fun together. But many competitive gamers expect the casual gamers to utilize the entire winning circle at all times (even when it is not what they want), and have no trouble playing outside of the "fun intersection" to win games against opponents who want to stay within it.
And a lot of people's definition of 'tournament player' is akin to A Saturday moning cartoons villain. Lots of projection, exaggeration, hyperbole and myth.
I used to think it was exaggerated too, but then I remembered that I've actually played games (not mini games, but card and board games) against these kinds of players. I don't think every "tournament player" is a goblin, and I think these goblins are more amalgamations than actual people, but those tendencies are real, and there's no doubt that some players are more goblin than not.
I think a competitive player can play another competitive player and have a great, friendly game. I don't think a competitive player can carry that same attitude into games with anybody else without there being friction, and I see that in the various mini wargaming communities I visit - even Warmachine. There was a thread in the PP forums recently about how the emphasis on tournament tendencies was potentially driving away players and creating a barrier of entry for new ones. I believe the thread was called something like "Dwindling players".
Again, there is nothing wrong with being competitive - when it is appropriate. But it is not always appropriate, and there are certain attitudes which are, if you'll excuse the term, toxic to the well being of the community. I think competitive players have a... let's call it "aggressive" way of expressing themselves, which makes them dominate discussions and communities, making their way the dominant concern of the game makers (or complaining VERY loudly and frequently, when their concerns are NOT the main concern, such as every Age of Sigmar thread ever). Seriously, competitive gamers are the only ones who will tell everyone within earshot how they are leaving the game for another one because a stat is slightly different than what they'd prefer.
I don't think its a divide personally. It's a different way of doing things. like how I can run marathons.
It is a different way of doing things, and in appropriate places, it is well met. I actually like playing competitive players, when I'm feeling sufficiently competitive, because I also enjoy that aspect of gaming. It's one of the reasons I like Warmachine. But there are times when competitive players are not cooperative, and their desires for the future of a game don't mesh with mine, and the resulting discussions end up less than civil.
In my mind. It's also partly a lack of organisation, a lack of will and a lack of willingness to do anything. A lot of gamers are very lazy. In my experience. Too many would rather sit back and complain on dakka, rather than be proactive and change the games they play, and how they play their games. And to try different ways of doing things. Which feeds into the 'but it's different to how we play, so it's wrong and cannot work' mentality that you see sometimes.
This comment fits in perfectly with my previous one. While your way of playing is okay and simply different, those who play in a manner unlike yours are lazy and lack willingness to try new things. They are wrong, while you are simply choosing a different approach. In a way, competitive players are like the conservatives of the gaming world. They believe that if you are not having fun, it is your fault because you didn't step up. You are poor because you want to be poor, and thus you deserve it. It's karma. But it could be that competitive gamers are the ones not willing to try new things, and their inability to play anything but competitive games at their peak proficiency is what makes the game feel lacking.
Well it doesn't sound any different,vor offer anything different to any other wargame that I know, or play to be fair. positioning being important. Ok... Never seen thst before... Terrain and manoeuvre. Ok... Gasp! Why hasn't this been Done?
I'm not aware of many wargames in which you can literally not move near opponents. Even charges can fail when you roll ones. This makes positioning a dominant strategy of area control - in a way, the units become moving, impassable terrain that you can use to shape the battlefield, and the ONLY way to pass them is to engage them in battle to remove them altogether. I think a lot of players, yourself included, are greatly underestimating how much the zone of control around models changes how the battles must be fought.
As this is already quite long, and this isn't a WMH thread, I'm going to skip commenting on that part. Let's just agree to disagree on that matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plumbumbarum wrote: I hate Warmachine to the guts, the artwork the models and the type of gameplay. I would sooner buy a hundred copies of the same sigmarine and paint them gold, wash them gold, drybrush them gold and highlight them gold than buy a single warjack. And I loathe sigmarines.
But saying AoS is more tactical or a better game is ridiculous.
Not to mention comparisions to chess. Jesus.
I didn't say that AoS was the better game. Warmachine has been around over a decade, with ten different factions (not including the various mercenary mini-factions) and has had at least one major revision of the rules to address deficiencies. AoS has a long way to go before it can compare. And unlike you, I love the Warjacks (just wish they were actually worthwhile in the game that is literally named after them).
I said AoS was more tactically interesting because the movement was more fundamental and impactful. WMH has very little maneuvering, as evidenced by the typical WMH player's irrational hate of using terrain. In fact, if you removed all movement from the game and just had two lines of figures fighting it out, Final Fantasy style, I'm not sure the game would be all that different.
The comparison was more intended to be Go, but I didn't think it was familiar enough and threw Chess in there as well. Go is a game about area control, where you win through position, not conflict. Chess is also a game of positioning where you can use threat ranges to control the field.
Finally, you can paint the Stormcast teal, if you want. I believe they are the angry ones (no doubt angry at being teal).
I was a part of that thread and it was basically one botter guy being told he was wrong.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
2015/08/20 13:35:59
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
agnosto wrote: What killed AoS for me is my inability to utilize real world tactics;
Yes, I agree. I feel AoS models wizards and goblins riding on the backs of giant spiders all wrong compared to how they existed in history.
AoS severely hampers my ability and has no flexibility for me to create a, in my mind, tactically valid force. The reason is that I need the tacit approval of my opponent to place units and it forces me to be "sensitive" to what models they bring to the table. I might have a force of Ogre "legionnaires" in mind with gnobblar auxiliary support and pincer wings of mournfangs but show up to play and the opponent I happen meet wrecks this by not placing enough forces to be competitive against my concept force. My fun is ruined and if I go ahead an place what I have in mind, his fun is ruined.
Isn't that just you being selfish though? Maybe there are people out there that play in the manner that you would like... but does every game have to be that way? Is your fun really ruined when you have to occasionally play the game differently when playing against a new opponent? I mean really? Is it really ruined? Your fun? Ruined? Just going to spend the rest of the day sitting in a corner, pouting, because some donkey-cave had the unmitigated GALL to want to play a game with you? What a jerk!
Think of it like dating. When you first meet, you may have to do things you aren't interested in, like going roller skating. But if you have fun, you can keep seeing each other. And by the third date, you should be comfortable enough with your partner to start asking for the things you really want. You know, the kinky stuff.
There is no tactical depth. People can talk about zones of control like it's a new concept and didn't exist in 8th edition or TFGs.
I didn't say it was new. I said it was fundamental, as in the rules are built around it. Literally. The majority of the rules are about movement up to (but not into) this zone, that you must flee to escape the zone, that you charge into the zone, about starting in this zone to begin combat, about piling in exactly the same length as the zone's radius, and probably other rules I've forgotten about. Pretty much every rule on page 3 is about this 3" zone directly or indirectly.
I also said that its ramifications are not immediately obvious. The rules are built around this zone of control, but they never explicitly say, "hey guy, this model exerts undue influence in the 3" area immediately surrounding it, allowing it to do X, Y, and Z. Relax, guy. Take a load off."
I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base.
Citation needed.
2015/08/20 13:56:31
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
I'm coming to the conclusion that peace talks in the Middle East must be a breeze in comparison to AoS discussion threads.
You'll never get a 'statement' from GW on the subject, but it is pretty clear that AoS is not intended to be balanced/competitive in any way beyond enjoyable social agreement.
I could post countless videos and articles about how bad farming animals is, how destructive to the environment and people's health, yadda yadda. Then mix it with videos and articles about the latest offering from Arby's, how to cook a steak perfectly, the amount of protein bodybuilders eat, etc.
In all seriousness, how many people will change their opinion or attitude based on all that?
People who say the game has no depth - I disagree, but I know you'll never allow yourself to be shown otherwise.
People who say it's impossible to play without nerfing yourself - again, no-one will ever convince you otherwise.
Wargaming is a hobby. You should enjoy it. Do not belittle people for what they enjoy, or you're the same as every teenage pinhead who ever banged on the window of a GW and shouted "NERDS!".
Can we move WFB to the 'unsupported GW games' section now?
Victoria Haley is my favorite Warcaster.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
