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.

Thread locked to merge into main thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/655877.page

Thanks!

Now before we get started this isn't any kind of shot against AoS, this is about fantasy.

I find that a few of the AoS guys are over compensating for the new games flaws by calling fantasy bad now. Ive seen it in a few threads AoS is new and replaces fantasy therefor somehow it means fantasy needed taking down and was bad and toxic now apparently and been a competitive game is the most evil thing it could have been. I don't understand the thought process behind this. Its cool if people like it but I don't get why fantasys name must be now dragged through the dirt, its players shamed and the game cast off like a bad penny. Is that how we want to remember fantasy, the thing that launched GW as some ugly flawed evil corrupting mess that has been swept away by the glorious AoS as if everyone was just begging for AoS to save them from the evils of fantasy.

Doesn't sit right with me the way people are so ready to cast aside fantasy. Maybe thats just me, maybe im seeing things but if its gotta go we should remember all the good times. We don't need to shame fantasy to make AoS look better, its new, its got to earn its respect not just take away fantasys to look better at launch.

Anyway, see you fantasy..

I'm with you. I'm still in numb shock that they actually killed off the characters, setting, and game as a whole. As a response, I've been trying to collect the old Fantasy codices. Age of Sigmar isn't for me, I'd rather play the various editions of Fantasy.

100% this. Have an exalt. One of the best, truest "AoS vs WHFB" posts I've read.

As a huge fan of 8th Fantasy, I still appreciate AoS for what it is and I'm sure, when I can house-rule some balance and other rules into the game, I'll have fun playing it. Yet, I do see your point: a lot of pro-AoS people are taking the "well I just want to have fun" or "I think WHFB was too complicated" or "well I don't like mass battle games" arguments. That's all well and good, but it doesn't make Age of Sigmar a better game and nor does it fairly take into the opinions and desires of many WHFB players who enjoyed the game because of its scale, complexity and balance.

Never understood why people call WFB "Fantasy". Fantasy is the name for a wide brand of themed stories -and AoS is definitely Fantasy (well...you could say it's more like "Heroïc High Fantasy", but that's nitpicking).

But yeah, the first thing to do to defend something new against its ancestor is to deny the old one. Because you don't need to change something that works, right?

Because we've always been at war with Eastasia.

It's part of the narrative AOS fans have concocted to justify their simplified and incomplete game.

It's the same narrative that says points systems don't work because look how broken 40k is.

I think some have nothing against WHFB, but didn't like the type of people that got involved in the tournament/competitive scene. In fact, I liked and still like WHFB 8th edition. I'm even currently involved in a WFRP game.
Some of the last games I played in 8th edition were with the Elves EoT list. Once I pretty much tabled a Khemri player - who also happens to be a friend of mine - on the first turn.
I felt awful about it, so I nerfed myself for the next game, which was against Bretonnia - so much in fact that I lost that one.
To some people this concept of playing against a person to have fun with that person is alien, I guess.
I mean, if you are a guy who is 30, 35 years old, playing with miniatures, you should have the maturity to avoid cheating, rule lawyering and in general to not make a game which is supposed to be fun a miserable experience for your opponent. Still a lot of players do exactly that.
Oh, but it's a tournament so everything changes?
Reality check, it's not the world cup tournament of some important sport, you're still some random dude playing with toy soldiers.
This is what I think a lot of people mean when they say that WHFB was toxic. They are not talking about the game itself, but a part of the community that nurtured a specific, toxic mindset.

Thanks for this thread, OP!

Vetril, while I agree about that, I'd also say there are those types of players in any community. Most fantasy players were not that way... for someone to say otherwise or characterize them all that way is a lot like victim blaming, to me (i.e. your game is dead because you suck ).

I mean, one of the other threads in this section has a person calling a fantasy player TFG for angling a unit so that if it ran away it would go off the edge of the table rather than panic the rest of his units. That's just simple strategy, and WHFB was a complicated game!

I think it'd be great if AoS fans could love the game for what it is without trashing fantasy. To quote Equilibrium (and Yeats):

"But I being poor have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet. Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams."

I liked large scale fantasy battles, which is why I liked WHFB, I even thought 8th was pretty good, despite what the internet says about it.


AoS seems like it could be a good skirmish game. I'm introducing it to my girlfriends ten year old brother (who is probably the ideal market gw is aiming for) and it is really easy to do. The rules are easy, and when asked "how much does it cost?" I say however much you want to spend, there is no minimum. What to play with twenty skaven clanrats? Then go ahead.

It isn't really my cup of tea, but I can see the benefits for children, but it definitely isn't the mass battle game that I wanted to play. And when I want to play skirmish games. Then I have my warmahordes.

I loved Fantasy, but I really only dabbled in it. When I first started, my smallish armies were enough to play with. Once I tried getting back in in 8th, they were not. The End Times stuff really enticed me, but at the end of the day it still sucked that I couldn't play a meaningful game without 200 troops and 20 monsters.

 Sarouan wrote:
Never understood why people call WFB "Fantasy". Fantasy is the name for a while brand of themed stories -and AoS is definitely Fantasy (well...you could say it's more like "Heroïc High Fantasy", but that's nitpicking).

But yeah, the first thing to do to defend something new against its ancestor is to deny the old one. Because you don't need to change something that works, right?

You are making things much more complicated than they are.

Warhammer Fantasy Battles. Nicknamed "Fantasy."
Warhammer 40.000. Nicknamed "Forty Kay."

It's as easy as that. The two big games are both called Warhammer. "Fantasy" distinguishes it from its brother.
We've always called it "Fantasy" so now it's a way to distinguish it from AoS, which is obviously not a new version of fantasy, but a completely new game that just happens to use the same models.

 RiTides wrote:
Thanks for this thread, OP!

Vetril, while I agree about that, I'd also say there are those types of players in any community. Most fantasy players were not that way... for someone to say otherwise or characterize them all that way is a lot like victim blaming, to me (i.e. your game is dead because you suck ).

I mean, one of the other threads in this section has a person calling a fantasy player TFG for angling a unit so that if it ran away it would go off the edge of the table rather than panic the rest of his units. That's just simple strategy, and WHFB was a complicated game!

Still, it doesn't mean that one has to tolerate them.
I don't play tournaments exactly because I can't be bothered to discuss risible "interpretations" of a rule for more than 5 minutes at a time. Friends of mine discovered a dude cheating at a tournament, moving around a cannon when he measured the range after he estimated it so that it would seem correct. Another had a 7" pencil that he casually put down on the battlefield to stealthily measure distances. One team of competitive players had a forum to discuss the best ways to cheat at tournaments - I kid you not. Not to mention the endless bickering about rules; I play wood elves and I still remember all the ridicolous discussion concerning enchanted arrows.
I don't want to deal with these guys - and you will meet them if you go to a tournament. Sure as death.
Now, if these guys are driven away by the AoS vagueness about what's fair (implying you have to discuss with your opponent, thus forcing you to communicate and reach an agreement in advance), I can only be happy - not just for me, since I have friends to play with anyway, but for all the guys who only play PUGs and who are not forced to put up with this gak anymore.

What is wrong with positioning your troops where they will get the best advantage?

It is one of the important characteristics of all the best generals in history.

I can't understand why people would object to such elements of tactics being expressed in a wargame.

Rigorous rule wording isn't about nitpicking or trying to deceive your opponent.

It's about having clear rules, so that you don't have to spend time arguing with your fellows having a different interpretation of your own. Instead, you spend more time playing since everything is clear for everyone.

That's why tournaments need that kind of things; because it's all about meeting players you don't usually play against. Each can have a different way of how they play the game, and no one is better than the other.

The myth of the horrible tournament player ready to kill his mother just to win a game is just that: a myth. Some players can be jerks, but they're more like an exception than the main rule.

A fun game doesn't mean a game with lazy rule writing - I know games that are very fun to play but still very clear in the rules so that you just need to read them to understand the way it's meant to be played. But on the other hand, lazy game designers can try to say you're not fun if you're pointing the holes in their game system...because lazy game designers don't like being told they're lazy.

 Sarouan wrote:
The myth of the horrible tournament player ready to kill his mother just to win a game is just that: a myth. Some players can be jerks, but they're more like an exception than the main rule.

Not true. All the examples I wrote above are real. Either I witnessed them personally, or the friends I play with did.

Vetril wrote:


Not true. All the examples I wrote above are real. Either I witnessed them personally, or the friends I play with did.

Then you had bad experiences and bad luck. It happens, unfortunately. I can tell you my own experiences or those from my friends when everything went fine in our tournaments and we had a lot of fun to play with people outside of our gaming circle.

I know a lot of players who are afraid to go at tournaments because of that myth - which is in fact the fear to have a really bad experience and having the feeling of wasting their time. So, they try to justify it by saying it's because tournaments are filled with terrible players only wanting to rip them apart.

That's just not true. Most players don't want to spend a bad day for what is their hobby. They just want to have fun and play their favorite game with fellow players, in general.

So my experiences are bad luck. Your experiences are the norm. Mhkay.

 Sarouan wrote:

Vetril wrote:


Not true. All the examples I wrote above are real. Either I witnessed them personally, or the friends I play with did.

Then you had bad experiences and bad luck. It happens, unfortunately. I can tell you my own experiences or those from my friends when everything went fine in our tournaments and we had a lot of fun to play with people outside of our gaming circle.

I know a lot of players who are afraid to go at tournaments because of that myth - which is in fact the fear to have a really bad experience and having the feeling of wasting their time. So, they try to justify it by saying it's because tournaments are filled with terrible players only wanting to rip them apart.

That's just not true. Most players don't want to spend a bad day for what is their hobby. They just want to have fun and play their favorite game with fellow players, in general.

I dont play tournaments but out of all the ones i have been to your experience is the norm. I concur with the myth of that "one" guy. Sure they do exist but it is someone suffering from serious issues and far from normal.

Also bear in mind those of us that do not play tournaments also find AoS too simplistic for us to even have fun playing. This is certainly not a Tourney vs fun player line. We only play for fun and general play campaign style narratives but will be sticking with 8th. aside from customization removal that lack of wheeling formed blocks (the reason we enjoy playing mass fantasy battles) is a huge show stopped for our group.

Not really. Our local games store has a big community, but there are four people in said community that I don't want to play because they are either hyper-competitive or flat-out cheat.

One of them plays X-wing, two play 40k, one plays warmachine.

All four of them play WHFB, and virtually no-one else does as a result, because no-one can face the annoyance of playing them - they have managed to give the entire game a bad reputation.

Let me be clear; I am not ragging on WHFB as a set of rules. I don't think many people actually are. There are three things at work here, though.

a) People who like the look of WAOS aren't necessarily saying WHFB 8th edition was bad. I'm not. I didn't really enjoy playing it the few times I did, but that's my taste. However, there has been a massive outpouring of rage against the new game, and hence there is a natural response to point out the flaws in WHFB 8th edition which did exist - not least in game balance, which is far more significant for a game which did seem to be aimed more at competitive play. I'm not saying WAoS is perfect - it isn't and (at least partly) deliberatly so, but nor is WHFB 8th a paragon of perfection.

b) I can't speak globally, but WHFB does tend to be the game of choice wherever I've been for people who are too competitive to be fun playing against. I don't mean you shouldn't try to win, but that's not the same as people who'll deliberately build their armies around unclear wording or loopholes in the rules, argue over milimetres of distance and take far too much satisfaction in winning in such a way that the opposing player really doesn't need to be there because he doesn't get to do anything.

c) As noted, building a WHFB 8th edition army that you can take to a campaign weekend or similar event costs a sodding fortune, even compared to 40k, and that's saying something. You can, of course, play small games, but WHFB 8th edition was deliberately designed for balance around it's intended game size of ~2000-3000 points; anyone who's done a 'tale of X gamers' builder league will discover that, for example, magic doesn't scale well; rather than providing a certain benefit proportional to your investment in wizards, it provides a massive benefit to the side that 'wins' the magic phase. Which is fine, in theory, but in a small game a single wizard can dominate out of all proportion to his cost. That's not an issue for playing 'proper sized games' but it is a barrier to entry for those outside looking in.

As a last comment, that last is a critical thing. Back in march, ICv2 published a list of the most popular non-collectable miniature lines (i.e. wargame pieces) based on sales, from US and European distributors.

1st place was GW WH40k. No big surprise, and by first, that means "as big as the rest of the top 5 combined"
2nd was FFG X-wing.
3rd was PP Warmachine
4th and 5th were Attack Wing (D&D and ST respectively).

WHFB didn't make the top 5. For a game for which GW supports almost the same in terms of model range and diversity of armies as 40k, it was selling virtually nothing.

It may not be - no, give it its due, is not - a bad rule-set from a competitive sense, but if you don't already have a WHFB army, it historically and provably is not appealing to new players, even those who already play similar games

 RiTides wrote:
Thanks for this thread, OP!

Vetril, while I agree about that, I'd also say there are those types of players in any community. Most fantasy players were not that way... for someone to say otherwise or characterize them all that way is a lot like victim blaming, to me (i.e. your game is dead because you suck ).

I mean, one of the other threads in this section has a person calling a fantasy player TFG for angling a unit so that if it ran away it would go off the edge of the table rather than panic the rest of his units. That's just simple strategy, and WHFB was a complicated game!

I think it'd be great if AoS fans could love the game for what it is without trashing fantasy. To quote Equilibrium (and Yeats):

"But I being poor have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet. Tread softly, because you tread on my dreams."

Somebody actually had the nerve to get upset about an opponent positioning troops intelligently? What an a-hole!

OP Exalted.
I find most of the dung-flinging (from both sides) on these boards of late kinda amusing to be honest. Mostly because its a complete moot point.
Too many people are still treating this as a new edition of fantasy, despite there being a few reasons why this appears to be the case. Obviously existing Fantasy miniatures are intended to be used and from a Lore perspective the AoS universe has risen from the ashes of the WHFB universe, but this is quite literally where any connection between Fantasy and AoS ends.
These are now, quite intentionally, two very separate game systems that are aimed at engaging different people. That is not to say people cannot enjoy both, but comparing them as a means of finding a superior game or claiming some moral high ground is ridiculous.

I find the idea that there is a lot of dung-flinging hilarious.

I'm seeing everyone citing it happening and not seeing it at all. In fact, the people that say they enjoyed Fantasy are in many cases the same people saying they are enjoying AoS.

Look up from the keyboard and you'll see that most people on here right now are being uncharacteristically nice to eachother and while arguing what points are good or bad about AoS, most aren't really raging about it existing. Some people wish Fantasy could exist alongside, but even they are not really raving about it, but rather accepting the death of a loved one that has been on the brink for a long time.

I really enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks everyone

 The Shadow wrote:
100% this. Have an exalt. One of the best, truest "AoS vs WHFB" posts I've read.

As a huge fan of 8th Fantasy, I still appreciate AoS for what it is and I'm sure, when I can house-rule some balance and other rules into the game, I'll have fun playing it. Yet, I do see your point: a lot of pro-AoS people are taking the "well I just want to have fun" or "I think WHFB was too complicated" or "well I don't like mass battle games" arguments. That's all well and good, but it doesn't make Age of Sigmar a better game and nor does it fairly take into the opinions and desires of many WHFB players who enjoyed the game because of its scale, complexity and balance.

the problem with that is a lot of the ye old hammer players say that AoS is a "worse game" its "childish" and " I do not like skirmish"... that is all well and good but that does not mean that WFB is a "better" game nor does it fairly take into account the opinions and desires of the AoS players who are enjoying the skirmish scale, the simplicity and freedom the game provides.

see what I did there? its not just the "pro" AoS side that is behaving in a silly way its also ye old players... both sides suck... I am off to buy paints and a pin vice (cheaper than a drill from GW)

Vetril wrote:
This is what I think a lot of people mean when they say that WHFB was toxic. They are not talking about the game itself, but a part of the community that nurtured a specific, toxic mindset.

And you think that this "toxic" community will just magically go away along with WHFB and all that will be left is a fun-loving, happy community where everyone loves each other and has so much, non-competitive fun because AoS is all sunshine and rainbows?

Please forgive the tone, but with any game there will be people who play it more seriously that others. Someone will come up with a tournament version of AoS and there will be players there who make the community "toxic". Admittedly, yes, you're less likely to run into such a person at your local store by playing AoS, but please don't jump to ridiculous conclusions that people play WAAC because of the WHFB system.

bitethythumb wrote:
the problem with that is a lot of the ye old hammer players say that AoS is a "worse game" its "childish" and " I do not like skirmish"... that is all well and good but that does not mean that WFB is a "better" game nor does it fairly take into account the opinions and desires of the AoS players who are enjoying the skirmish scale, the simplicity and freedom the game provides.

But the thing is, WHFB is a better game. Doesn't mean it's more fun, or that one particular person will prefer it. But it is of better quality. It has such radical concepts like a balancing system and rules that aren't ridiculously awkward.

As a new player who just spent considerable amounts of cash on getting into WFB I really agree with the OP.

Maybe I'd be more willing to try AoS if there weren't so many sweeping changes. I'm still working on 8th ed list building, now all that is irrelevant. It seems to me that GW could have very easily released AoS as a stand alone game, much akin to Space Hulk.

The idea that WFB was a bad thing and needed fixing is one rooted firmly in profiteering. Sure sales were down, but were they indicative of a failing brand? Probably not. If anything WFB had reached a point where people weren't interested in starting new armies, but rather in expanding on existing ones. Given the price and model count, you can't expect anyone but the richest of us to invest all at once. That being said IoB was cheaper than AoS and included some very nice models. Sure that set required some tinkering to be "playable" but in truth all one had to do was nix the Griffon and the set was great. The size of the armies meant that both players could explore the mechanics of the game, without spending 3 turns grinding infantry. This was a good thing and it certainly inspired me to spend more money on High Elves. Furthermore WFB had amassed a loyal following that was genuinely interested in the continuation of the game. The End Times proves that. How many times did those books sell out? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a hardback copy of any of those books now.

If AoS was just another facet of this already wonderful game I'd probably be playing it right now. As it stands GW themselves have called WFB juvenile and relegated it to the basement. This new game is to be taken seriously and yet we get Sigmarines. A sculpt so obviously copied from power armour it even features the same soft armour joints. They are literally Space Marines thrown into a AutoCAD and rehashed for fantasy.

As it stands GW has canned the game that started it all and replaced it with an unwanted product. No one was saying kill fantasy battle, no one wanted beard rules. We just wanted a more accessible way to get into the game, and maybe some rules patches. Cheaper minis maybe.

Its like GW is pulling a darkcloak and saying "well if you don't like it I'll just throw it away!"

Its okay for me to do it, but a game company?

I guarantee you, if WHFB didn't start calling AoS a kiddy game and calling the players that play it childish idiots who don't understand what a real game is, AoS players wouldn't have an issue with WHFB.

I've played a few editions of WHFB but I've never really gone whole hog into it like I did with 40k because of some of the rules and requirements to play the game. AoS solves a lot of those problems even if it requires me to actually talk to my opponent and agree on starting forces (Strange concept, I know)

Nothing prevents either set of players from playing their own games, but the rhetoric being thrown in the faces of AoS players has forced them to respond in kind.

Both games have their boons and banes, enjoy what you play and leave the other side alone. That's really all there is to the subject.

+1 rybak, excellently said.

 The Shadow wrote:

But the thing is, WHFB is a better game. Doesn't mean it's more fun, or that one particular person will prefer it. But it is of better quality. It has such radical concepts like a balancing system and rules that aren't ridiculously awkward.

its better game IN YOUR OPINION, remember that as you said "simplicity" and "complexity" do not make a better game (simplicity being AoS, complexity being WFB), if people enjoy it more than they did WFB than for those people it is a BETTER game... just because YOU disagree does not invalidate their opinion on the matter... and you say rules are ridiculously awkward, I do not think so and neither does anyone I have played with and neither has anyone who they played with are you saying we are all "wrong"?

Cant you just accept that both games are "good" in their respect players mindsets... I personally think it IS a better game because it does not restrict as heavily as WFB does, its also more friendly for conversions (bases do not matter and neither do units, sorta) its also better for army building as you LITERALLY can take ANYTHING you want... mix sigmar and khorne units together, mix skaven and lizardmen, the potential for army building IMO is far better... heck make an army of 5 giants with 1 hellpit abomination as their puppy and 3 eagle riders... anything goes, and that for me is better... and I am not saying that WFB is a worse game, not in the slightest I am just saying that for me AoS is better... both games are great and both have(had) their place in the miniature world, and I understand that a lot of ye old players are angry that their game is gone (more or less) but that is life... its not always fair, its better to accept the change and either embrace it or move on.... your units and models that you have painted can STILL be used in AoS and in your friendly circles or KoW (as people suggest its great) so I see no reason to be so bitter... sure GW is not your happy zone now but flinging poo at them and their "new" players is not going to change that.

Accept Change, Adapt, Evolve, go home and wait for the bitter embrace of death that we all await.

WHFB is objectively better because it's a better /game/. Precise reasons have been given multiple times already, so I'll give you just one thing to consider:

In WHFB, you could just as well play without points and just play however and with what armies you want. Alternatively, you can play a balanced...ish game at equal points cost.

Can you do both in AoS?

I am baffled by all the "We now have more freedom!" people. They are objectively wrong. The entire point is absurd. I mean...now that people have written rules in AoS that they can play however they want, they claim to have more freedom despite it being possible to play WHFB in the exact same way. Apocalypse somehow worked similarly.

Now...if you need rules to explicitely tell you that you can play however you want, despite being able to do the same before without written rules...what system gives you more freedom?

 Sigvatr wrote:
WHFB is objectively better because it's a better /game/. Precise reasons have been given multiple times already, so I'll give you just one thing to consider:

In WHFB, you could just as well play without points and just play however and with what armies you want. Alternatively, you can play a balanced...ish game at equal points cost.

Can you do both in AoS?

I am baffled by all the "We now have more freedom!" people. They are objectively wrong. The entire point is absurd. I mean...now that people have written rules in AoS that they can play however they want, they claim to have more freedom despite it being possible to play WHFB in the exact same way. Apocalypse somehow worked similarly.

Now...if you need rules to explicitely tell you that you can play however you want, despite being able to do the same before without written rules...what system gives you more freedom?

You'll never convince someone who finds AoS to be a better game, and a game they have more fun with, that WHFB is the "better" game. You can throw objectivity around all you want, but interpretation is PURELY subjective and based entirely on any individuals views of fun and quality.

YOU find WHFB to be better, I don't. Some players find WHFB to be better, others don't. Leave it at that.