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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That sounds more like what the local players are into. If you can't find an opponent who can play without going for crazy overkill, time to convert your family or else play KOW instead?

to me, most of these complaints sound like you want the game to police the players because the players are jerks. If they are such jerks, would you really want to play any game with them?

Yeah: what's the difference of what game you play, if you don't have like minded players to game with? Whether you're playing WMH or 40k or AoS, if your opponents are hypercompetitive and you're not, you're going to have a lot less fun.

Essentially, you can break it down into people who build armies because they want to play models that they enjoy, and people who build armies that are optimized around winning combinations. I personally find these two philosophies very hard to reconcile, as a themetic list typically has no chance against a min/max (spammy) list or supercombo list; and typically the themetic player doesn't WANT either of the latter. Somewhat of a relief to this are superformations like Gladius and Skyhammer or Decurion. But even so, people who want to optimize these will do much better than people who just want to play with what they want to play with (within the context of a Company, for example).

It's made worse by 99.99% of these combinations being taken off the Internet. It's also made worse by not really needing to be all that "tactical" or "strategic" in any particular game, because most of the folks using these great combos (in whatever game) are just repeating what they've read on the Internet. For me, that's 100% NOT my thing. I would rather go get a root canal. Now, if one of my friends thought of an original, awesome combo, I would happily lose to it (but not over and over and over - I'm happy to concede at some point that a "normal" army can't win against it).

My suggestion is simply to start another group of people who are looking for the same thing that you are.

 Talys wrote:

Yeah: what's the difference of what game you play, if you don't have like minded players to game with? Whether you're playing WMH or 40k or AoS, if your opponents are hypercompetitive and you're not, you're going to have a lot less fun.

Essentially, you can break it down into people who build armies because they want to play models that they enjoy, and people who build armies that are optimized around winning combinations. I personally find these two philosophies very hard to reconcile, as a themetic list typically has no chance against a min/max (spammy) list or supercombo list; and typically the themetic player doesn't WANT either of the latter.

Main issue with that is some armies, while still thematic, can also be absurdly overpowered. The Tau are the perfect example of that - a regular Tau army back in the day (you know, your typical Black Library book tau army with fire warriors, cool suits and tnaks) was just outright overpowered. You were literally scorned by other players for playing an army you enjoy!

The big problem here is that not everything can work. A thematic army of dwarf slayers led by slayer heroes might not be as good as a well-rounded, regular dwarf army and it's not even game's fault - you are supposed to be making a good, balanced army that has all it's bases covered. The ETC Empire army netlist was perfect example of that - you had two blocks of halberdiers, a unit of demigryph knights, a tank, a hurricanum, a couple archers (as redirectors) and wizards/general. That's your typical Empire army from any book (of course tanks and demigryphs may vary lore-wise). But a regular Dark Elf army was a total mix-match ragtag bunch of regiments that just worked the best in that particular setup because each was op in it's own field.

But what if the player actually likes playing that particular mix because it suits what he pictured in his mind as a cool ark army? He is running a min/maxed army while still enjoying it for other reasons.

It's hard to balance everything because some builds will always be weaker than those where you just cherry-pick all the best things for competitive, sports-like game where everyone tries equally hard to make the best out of what they have available.

@Klyerch - I totally get what your saying. Even in 6e Eldar, what transports did people want Eldar use, if not Wave Serpents? Decurion... cheese or fluff?

I was oversimplifying things a bit, of course.

I just read a synopsis of the End Times and AoS fluff.

What a travesty.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I just read a synopsis of the End Times and AoS fluff.

What a travesty.

Every time I see the AoS stuff, I get a serious "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" vibe...

Or is that just me?

 Commissar Molotov wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I just read a synopsis of the End Times and AoS fluff.

What a travesty.

Every time I see the AoS stuff, I get a serious "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" vibe...

Or is that just me?

Nah come on. GW is all orinanality, no He-man here. Or Diablo 3. Angles. Nope no or of that here.

On the other hand, I love the Diablo 3/World of Warcraft artwork. In model form? GIMME.

What I would do for a Tyrael model

Does anyone that played D3 at release remember kiting him to Act 3 Bridge, dying, and letting him kill all the mobs, and then coming back to get the loot? Happy times. I don't know how many thousands of dollars (of real money) that I made off of drops I got from Tyrael killing stuff. My favoritest angel ever!

 Commissar Molotov wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I just read a synopsis of the End Times and AoS fluff.

What a travesty.

Every time I see the AoS stuff, I get a serious "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" vibe...

Or is that just me?

You say that like is a bad thing.

I had to make that comment, a friend of mine has made a He-Man Chapter Master and his Chaos Lord is Hordak. He even has a Skeletor and Evilyn Sorcerers.

Aw, man - that's too darned good!

 Commissar Molotov wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I just read a synopsis of the End Times and AoS fluff.

What a travesty.

Every time I see the AoS stuff, I get a serious "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" vibe...

Or is that just me?

that would be even cooler...

Wife is putting together my start set. These might be the nicest models I've ever seen. Mind you I have 5 different 40k armies , these are really that good.

And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

We are working on one ourselves. Side one gets 7 Characters, now all we need is 40 Cavalry Figures and some townsfolk.

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

We are working on one ourselves. Side one gets 7 Characters, now all we need is 40 Cavalry Figures and some townsfolk.

environments are going to play a heavy role in my scenario and a bigger table is needed... And I am hoping to included progress as suggested in new book (like getting support if you are weakened or chaos gods helping etc) by adding more/less units over time

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy

Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.

Just saying...

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy

Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.

Just saying...

As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy

Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.

Just saying...

As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.

No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.

Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.

I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...

Played my first game this weekend.
The rules as written are horrible, yet somehow enjoyable if you make up your own and alter them.
We measured from bases and let models charge like in 40k (to the nearest free enemy model, not the nearest enemy model).
We each had 2 units and an unnamed hero.

It was quite fun and the rules are so streamlined, that you barely need to think for long and therefore plays really fast. It's not the perfect casual game, but if you play against a friend and agree on altering the rules to make some sense, it's a pretty fun casual game.

After not having played WHFB for 12 years, I found myself looking through the GW range of fantasy models, because this game makes me want to start a few small armies with 80 or so wounds for quick games.

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy

Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.

Just saying...

As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.

No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.

Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.

I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...

so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood aelf wedding.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
Played my first game this weekend.
The rules as written are horrible, yet somehow enjoyable if you make up your own and alter them.
We measured from bases and let models charge like in 40k (to the nearest free enemy model, not the nearest enemy model).
We each had 2 units and an unnamed hero.

It was quite fun and the rules are so streamlined, that you barely need to think for long and therefore plays really fast. It's not the perfect casual game, but if you play against a friend and agree on altering the rules to make some sense, it's a pretty fun casual game.

After not having played WHFB for 12 years, I found myself looking through the GW range of fantasy models, because this game makes me want to start a few small armies with 80 or so wounds for quick games.

I am mostly buying the models I like the look off and mixing them up, will be buying a grail relique next week to use as a proxy hero on horseback(do not copy me :( ) so far got a hellpit, river trolls, 16 skellies (will try and convert to 20), 3 goblin fanatics... Holding out on new models and still have the starter box to assemble, I feel like a night goblin at the burning man at this point.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy

Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.

Just saying...

As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.

No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.

Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.

I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...

so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.

You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.

I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.

GW protects IP.

Calls spell Arcane Arrow.

Someone mentioned Conan the Barbarian in relation to negative feelings toward AoS and I'd like to point something out.

Robert E. Howard helped create GW as much as Ridley Scott, Darth Vader and Rambo. What most people don't realize about Conan is that he was a great character and full of storytelling nuance. The bland homogenized image we get nowadays when someone brings him up is not the real Conan, certainly not the Conan REH would have written.

You see a man named L. Sprague De'Camp somehow got ahold of the rights to Conan after REH passed on, and while he was a big fan, he wasn't such a great writer. De'Camp spent the rest of his life profiting off Conan writing terrible pastiches. Ultimately Conan went from a multifaceted expression of REH's imagination to a generic hero trope, a very bad one at that. De'Camp was as generous with his property license as he was with his own interpretation of the characters and so many talentless hacks were able to further mangle the IP. In a nutshell Conan went from true literature to drugstore paperback. He may as well have been a Danielle Steele coverboy. Which is really funny when you realize that Conan started out in Weird Tales! A drugstore magazine!

Give me 5 more minutes I'll tell you about the soup I made today.

Fans of Conan and by extension REH will agree, Conan isn't just a big muscle bound brute, well he is that, but he is also cunning and iron willed. He has a depth of character not often found in hero's of his type and for anyone willing to look, there can be a wealth of philosophical meaning in his stories. Time and time again we see Conan as a morose and almost uncaring individual, but as you read further into him you can begin to see why he is this way. Life in Hyboria is bad. Its short and unkind and brutal and for a man like Conan there are no gods, no fates, no destiny. Life for Conan is what he can make of it. He eventually becomes a king and hey, for a scrawny kid from Cimmeria that's pretty darn good! But in the end, Conan knows that life is only as good as you make it, and well... What truly is better than a strong drink, a good lover and a hard fight? If you are Conan, nothing.

So how does this relate to AoS? Well longtime fans of WFB will tell you the same thing about their hobby as I have just told you about Conan. WFB was a fun game and it had lots of thinking involved. Fast forward 30 years and what do we have? A watered down ruleset, scale creep (or is that scale steamrolling?), PDF army books, useless accessories, and more of the same shut up and buy attitude.

You could say that GW has done for Warhammer what De'Camp did for Conan.

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy

Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.

Just saying...

As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.

No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.

Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.

I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...

so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.

You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.

I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.

so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 darkcloak wrote:
GW protects IP.

Calls spell Arcane Arrow.

Someone mentioned Conan the Barbarian in relation to negative feelings toward AoS and I'd like to point something out.

Robert E. Howard helped create GW as much as Ridley Scott, Darth Vader and Rambo. What most people don't realize about Conan is that he was a great character and full of storytelling nuance. The bland homogenized image we get nowadays when someone brings him up is not the real Conan, certainly not the Conan REH would have written.

You see a man named L. Sprague De'Camp somehow got ahold of the rights to Conan after REH passed on, and while he was a big fan, he wasn't such a great writer. De'Camp spent the rest of his life profiting off Conan writing terrible pastiches. Ultimately Conan went from a multifaceted expression of REH's imagination to a generic hero trope, a very bad one at that. De'Camp was as generous with his property license as he was with his own interpretation of the characters and so many talentless hacks were able to further mangle the IP. In a nutshell Conan went from true literature to drugstore paperback. He may as well have been a Danielle Steele coverboy. Which is really funny when you realize that Conan started out in Weird Tales! A drugstore magazine!

Give me 5 more minutes I'll tell you about the soup I made today.

Fans of Conan and by extension REH will agree, Conan isn't just a big muscle bound brute, well he is that, but he is also cunning and iron willed. He has a depth of character not often found in hero's of his type and for anyone willing to look, there can be a wealth of philosophical meaning in his stories. Time and time again we see Conan as a morose and almost uncaring individual, but as you read further into him you can begin to see why he is this way. Life in Hyboria is bad. Its short and unkind and brutal and for a man like Conan there are no gods, no fates, no destiny. Life for Conan is what he can make of it. He eventually becomes a king and hey, for a scrawny mid from Cimmeria that's pretty darn good! But in the end, Conan knows that life is only as good as you make it, and well... What truly is better than a strong drink, a good lover and a hard fight? If you are Conan, nothing.

So how does this relate to AoS? Well longtime fans of WFB will tell you the same thing about their hobby as I have just told you about Conan. WFB was a fun game and it had lots of thinking involved. Fast forward 30 years and what do we have? A watered down ruleset, scale creep (or is that scale steamrolling?), PDF army books, useless accessories, and more of the same shut up and buy attitude.

You could say that GW has done for Warhammer what De'Camp did for Conan.

dunno, Conan is pretty cool in the comics I read, he is closest to your original description than you think... Smart, strong, honourable etc... Maybe you just read the wring things? Was the D guy the one who made the movie? In which case your problem is watching bad movies..

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy

Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.

Just saying...

As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.

No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.

Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.

I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...

so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.

You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.

I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.

so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.

Yea keep insulting me buddy.

Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.

But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.

But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy

Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.

Just saying...

As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.

No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.

Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.

I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...

so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.

You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.

I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.

so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.

Yea keep insulting me buddy.

Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.

But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.

But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.

if you feel insulted I apologise, not my intent but you feverously anti AoS and your whole argument is "gw could have done more, the game is incomplete" but the thing is, the game is complete as it should be, the rules are simple because its the way it was designed, you think they are unfinished and I do not but I am somehow wrong and you are right, some of us rather enjoy it... And then you go off on the "gw is taking money" rant which more or less establishes why you have so much khorne in you... No one forced you to buy into their hobby and others are just as expensive
in short, some of us are content with the simplified rules and do not see it as unfinished, some of us so not want to carry around a 200 page books of rules because our hand needs to be held playing and where we as the players cannot work things out with a simple 5min conversation mid game.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy

Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.

Just saying...

As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.

No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.

Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.

I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...

so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.

You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.

I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.

so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.

Yea keep insulting me buddy.

Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.

But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.

But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.

if you feel insulted I apologise, not my intent but you feverously anti AoS and your whole argument is "gw could have done more, the game is incomplete" but the thing is, the game is complete as it should be, the rules are simple because its the way it was designed, you think they are unfinished and I do not but I am somehow wrong and you are right, some of us rather enjoy it... And then you go off on the "gw is taking money" rant which more or less establishes why you have so much khorne in you... No one forced you to buy into their hobby and others are just as expensive
in short, some of us are content with the simplified rules and do not see it as unfinished, some of us so not want to carry around a 200 page books of rules because our hand needs to be held playing and where we as the players cannot work things out with a simple 5min conversation mid game.

GW SHOULD have done more. Why is the game as complete as it should be? Its not complete at all, or people wouldn't be trying to fix it so much right now.

When did I say GW was taking my money? I am only criticizing their rules. And no, no other hobby is as expensive as GW that I do. GW is more expensive than most companies. Not that this has anything to do with their munted rules.

You dont have to carry around 200 pages for a complete ruleset.

Please stop making stuff up man. What game has a 200 page ruleset? GW doesnt even have that many pages of rules in any of their games.

AOS has NOTHING that ANY game doesn't have and actually has less. Nothing redeemable here but models that look cool.

If this is incomplete or not is to been seen.
But at this moment it is complete as it should be, because even in the first few weeks this seems to have an effect.

First off: AoS is not for me, i play WHFB since 3rd edition and above all like games with more depth, not less.

But in discussions i ask the people who complain most how many WHFB models they bought the last couple of years and the answer is "few" or "none", with the reason given: "because almost nobody plays it".

Well, that's exactly the reason why it had to change.
And the first fase of the change seems to work.
There are people that get interested in this game, which is easy and quite enough to have some fun with miniatures.
Nothing more and nothing less.

Maybe GW could have done more, but i don't think GW should have done more, because then this would not have worked. We already had a more complex game named WHFB that did not sell.
Maybe we get a AoS++ or new WHFB later on, but for now i actualy thing this is the best way to go. Even though it is not for me.

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy

Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.

Just saying...

As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.

No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.

Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.

I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...

so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.

You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.

I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.

so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.

Yea keep insulting me buddy.

Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.

But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.

But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.

if you feel insulted I apologise, not my intent but you feverously anti AoS and your whole argument is "gw could have done more, the game is incomplete" but the thing is, the game is complete as it should be, the rules are simple because its the way it was designed, you think they are unfinished and I do not but I am somehow wrong and you are right, some of us rather enjoy it... And then you go off on the "gw is taking money" rant which more or less establishes why you have so much khorne in you... No one forced you to buy into their hobby and others are just as expensive
in short, some of us are content with the simplified rules and do not see it as unfinished, some of us so not want to carry around a 200 page books of rules because our hand needs to be held playing and where we as the players cannot work things out with a simple 5min conversation mid game.

GW SHOULD have done more. Why is the game as complete as it should be? Its not complete at all, or people wouldn't be trying to fix it so much right now.

When did I say GW was taking my money? I am only criticizing their rules. And no, no other hobby is as expensive as GW that I do. GW is more expensive than most companies. Not that this has anything to do with their munted rules.

You dont have to carry around 200 pages for a complete ruleset.

Please stop making stuff up man. What game has a 200 page ruleset? GW doesnt even have that many pages of rules in any of their games.

AOS has NOTHING that ANY game doesn't have and actually has less. Nothing redeemable here but models that look cool.

see that is your problem, you think that talking mid game about rules is "fixing it" its not, the game is complete, its simple and new, I played a few games and the only thing needed fixing was a bigger table, so we combined 2 using portals... Anyways I am going to agree to disagree and wish you all the best in KoW or any other "complete game" and I will go back to thinking up scenarios and unit combos... Best wishes, love you

PLEASE CROP YOUR QUOTES