The internet would lead you to believe this mystical feat was impossible, but lo and behold, many of the UK's finest showed up, squared off (with circle bases none-the-less!) and had an absolute blast.
Anyone able to chime in who was actually at Clash of Swords? I really hope others in the US scene take note and realize that not only is there a contingent of folks interested in AoS... you CAN actually run a successful event!
On a related note... we are running Age of Sigmar events at NOVA September 4th, 5th, and 6th! We already have a bunch of folks signed up, with a casual night of gaming with some kickass scenarios and prizes lined up for Friday, as well as a more structured tournament on Saturday. Check out more details here: http://www.novaopen.com/?page_id=6670 and if you are in the area, feel free to just swing on by! We have space reserved for open gaming and demonstrations, and are welcoming same-day registrations if you want to play in either event!
Yea if you add restrictions and points costs and custom scenarios AOS can be fun sure. I don't think anybody is denying that. In fact I think most people would say AOS is on the right track, it just needs structure and clarification.
That's why the tournament organizer put in work to make the game playable. Imagine how much fun it would have been if they played the game by the rules... The rules as they are however are bad, otherwise, why did the tournament need to implement changes?
Looked like fun though, some pictures would be cool.
Swastakowey wrote: Yea if you add restrictions and points costs and custom scenarios AOS can be fun sure. I don't think anybody is denying that. In fact I think most people would say AOS is on the right track, it just needs structure and clarification.
Been saying this since the day the rules leaked. Personally didn't have fun with AoS until I found a solid comp system, but I've been having a blast since. Though even then, plenty of folks have been saying AoS is great even without comp, so I find OP's implied claim to be somewhat unjustified.
Swastakowey wrote: Yea if you add restrictions and points costs and custom scenarios AOS can be fun sure. I don't think anybody is denying that. In fact I think most people would say AOS is on the right track, it just needs structure and clarification.
Been saying this since the day the rules leaked. Personally didn't have fun with AoS until I found a solid comp system, but I've been having a blast since. Though even then, plenty of folks have been saying AoS is great even without comp, so I find OP's implied claim to be somewhat unjustified.
Impossible! Inconceivable! There is no way Age of Sigmar could possibly be fun! The Interwebz and "They" say so!
The only thing that makes me sad is this incessant desire/need by certain players to have a composition and/or points system before they will even try the game. Or they will play it once, and declare the game unplayable without a comp system or points or some other limiting factor (wounds warscrolls, whatever).
Tamwulf wrote: Impossible! Inconceivable! There is no way Age of Sigmar could possibly be fun! The Interwebz and "They" say so!
The only thing that makes me sad is this incessant desire/need by certain players to have a composition and/or points system before they will even try the game. Or they will play it once, and declare the game unplayable without a comp system or points or some other limiting factor (wounds warscrolls, whatever).
I know right, those silly people having fun wrong. People wanting to play competitive games clearly don't know what they are talking about.
More often I find people say it is playable, just not fun. Myself included. If players don't enjoy the game RAW but do enjoy it comped and decide to play that way, then why is that sad?
We have a league going on in our town. Play a couple escalation style games that get bigger as the weeks go on. The store is using its own comp rules and we so far, have been having a lot of fun.
As far as comp rules go, I think they are almost mandatory at this point. Especially if you can't eyeball a force and decide if it looks about fair before a game. I've been on the bad end of a player who just wouldn't stop putting down units because he already had a sudden death. So he piled the board with almost four times the models I had, and he wasn't playing a horde army... Lesson learned, though. I'll never play that person again.
But I've had far more positive experiences than bad ones. Met some cool people at this league who all want AoS to succeed as much as me, and we are all aware that this first try at an organized play system is as much a test as anything else. I'm having fun, the other players are having fun, the store organizer is having fun, I think you get the picture.
I hope the tournament scene in the U.S. picks up, or starts rather, as well. I was waiting to hear how Clash of Swords went and I'm really glad it went well. Looking forward to more details!
MongooseMatt wrote: My and my mates are going up to GW's AoS event next month - will try to remember to get some pics and do a report!
If you could get definitive answers on the "2 weapons = double attacks" and "do you need to set up a unit to be able to summon a similar unit later" debates, that should halve the "You make da call" forum traffic for a while...
A quick note on that one - nowhere in AoS does it say things do not stack (presume they do) and, interesting, nowhere does it say a 1 is always a fail. Which is interesting for, say, big units of Zombies.
I would be of the belief that both are intentional, but I'll ask around next month!
I know right, those silly people having fun wrong. People wanting to play competitive games clearly don't know what they are talking about.
Let's I think the point was that AoS does things a bit differently, and even if you like your games one way, if you go into Age of Sigmar with an open mind and a willingness to branch out from your comfort zone, you may enjoy the game regardless of your initial biases. You could say that about ANY game. But some particularly loud AoS deniers haven't done this - intentionally! - and they may have robbed themselves of a beneficial experience for the purposes of staying grumpy.
quiestdeus wrote: The internet would lead you to believe this mystical feat was impossible, but lo and behold, many of the UK's finest showed up, squared off (with circle bases none-the-less!) and had an absolute blast.
Exactly. When they are talking about AOS (this event) and I'm talking about AOS (out of the box) played at my FLGS, we're not talking about the same game.
Very happy Clash went off so well, will try to dig up some player reports ....
quiestdeus wrote: On a related note... we are running Age of Sigmar events at NOVA September 4th, 5th, and 6th! We already have a bunch of folks signed up, with a casual night of gaming with some kickass scenarios and prizes lined up for Friday, as well as a more structured tournament on Saturday. Check out more details here: http://www.novaopen.com/?page_id=6670 and if you are in the area, feel free to just swing on by! We have space reserved for open gaming and demonstrations, and are welcoming same-day registrations if you want to play in either event!
And good luck with the NOVAAOS! I dig the comp pack, particularly as it doesn't involve a pool system. The only thing I feel might be missing is a unit wounds cap? I've been going with 30 in my local comps - allows serious bonuses to big units of infantry, while limiting how imba my Ironguts can be
Swastakowey wrote: In fact I think most people would say AOS is on the right track, it just needs structure and clarification.
I wouldn't.... I think they should have stuck to a regimental based game at the core and introduced supplementary rules for a skirmish game. If I wanted to play another loose formation skirmish game I'd pick one of the several others that are popular. I played WHFB precisely for the reason that it was a popular regimental game, not in spite of it
Swastakowey wrote: In fact I think most people would say AOS is on the right track, it just needs structure and clarification.
I wouldn't.... I think they should have stuck to a regimental based game at the core and introduced supplementary rules for a skirmish game. If I wanted to play another loose formation skirmish game I'd pick one of the several others that are popular. I played WHFB precisely for the reason that it was a popular regimental game, not in spite of it
Boss Salvage wrote: Very happy Clash went off so well, will try to dig up some player reports ....
quiestdeus wrote: On a related note... we are running Age of Sigmar events at NOVA September 4th, 5th, and 6th! We already have a bunch of folks signed up, with a casual night of gaming with some kickass scenarios and prizes lined up for Friday, as well as a more structured tournament on Saturday. Check out more details here: http://www.novaopen.com/?page_id=6670 and if you are in the area, feel free to just swing on by! We have space reserved for open gaming and demonstrations, and are welcoming same-day registrations if you want to play in either event!
And good luck with the NOVAAOS! I dig the comp pack, particularly as it doesn't involve a pool system. The only thing I feel might be missing is a unit wounds cap? I've been going with 30 in my local comps - allows serious bonuses to big units of infantry, while limiting how imba my Ironguts can be
- Salvage
Thank you!!!
Yeah, having reviewed a lot of the other approaches popping up there are a few things I would have done differently in the pack, but hindsight, you know? I would not say we put our rules together at the last second, but maybe the last minute
A bunch of the sign-ups have sent emails about how excited they are, so it should be a pretty fun event and I am sure we will learn quite a bit - knowledge which we can use to make next year all the better!
Iron_Captain wrote: AoS is fun. I just wish they hadn't ditched Warhammer in favour of it.
I played in an AOS event on Saturday (very lightly comped with even lighter house rules) and thoroughly enjoyed myself. We talked about the turbulent state of AOS a little before getting started, and all of us agreed that a huge part of the ongoing poop-storm surrounding AOS came about because the new game was released as 8E was so viciously sacked. A better sense of timing and a little decorum would have gone a long ways on all fronts.
It just doesn't make sense from a marketing point of view. Just hosting it as your 3rd game would have been the perfect solution as you'd not only not alienate veterans, you'd also have a game for people to pick up (AoS) and then another people could grow in (WHFB). Ye know, kinda like War of the Ring / Hobbit. Ye know, the other game GW abandoned...and actually had very decent, dare I even say /good/, rules.
Iron_Captain wrote: AoS is fun. I just wish they hadn't ditched Warhammer in favour of it.
Yeah, I can't help but think that AoS would have received a much less hostile reception if it was released as an alternate way to use your WHFB figures, rather than as a replacement for that game.
The fact that people are having fun with AoS doesn't surprise me at all. There have been plenty of positive comments about it... the snide remarks about 'the internet' having a negative view of the game overlook that.
For those who wanted a free-form, loose-formation, fantasy skirmish game, who aren't too concerned about game balance, and who weren't particularly invested in WHFB, I'm sure it's fine.
Any game can be made to work and fun with enough tweaking and house ruling. The fact that AOS requires extensive tweaking makes it a bad game. I originally come from boardgaming where a game is considered good if the rules are balanced, tight, thematic, and flows smoothly out of the box. Aos fits none of these criteria. Imagine what rating AOS would get on Boardgamegeek.com. Maybe a 4.0... or less?
Any game can be fun if there are players who accept and enjoy the premise of the game.
AoS is a simple, skirmish level fantasy game that does not need extensive tweaking if you are happy to play it out of the box, without particular regard to fairness, especially if you ignore or preferably don't even notice grey areas like summoning and the other things that have provoked a lot of YMDC debate.
A lot of newcomers will be very happy playing it that way. A good excuse to move some figures around and roll a lot of dice. It doesn't require a lot of learning, thinking and time to play, but there is the absolute core of a wargame in the rules (table set-up, deployment, moving, fighting, victory conditions.)
It's simple and not satisfying if you are looking for something more in-depth but there is a workable game in it.
Boardgamegeek is giving AoS a rating of 5.2 out of 10 at the time of writing.
Ken52682 wrote: Any game can be made to work and fun with enough tweaking and house ruling. The fact that AOS requires extensive tweaking makes it a bad game. I originally come from boardgaming where a game is considered good if the rules are balanced, tight, thematic, and flows smoothly out of the box. Aos fits none of these criteria. Imagine what rating AOS would get on Boardgamegeek.com. Maybe a 4.0... or less?
did the tournament in question require "extensive" tweaking and what do you define extensive... A lot of people claim AoS needs a lot of tweaking but in reality most of the tweaking is very benign.
IIRC, the Boardgamegeek score was very polarized, with people either ranking it extremely low or extremely high.
That actually bodes well for AoS, as everyone thinking the game is a 7/10 (a mediocre game) would be its death knell, since everyone probably ALSO has a game that they rank higher than that. AoS it needs a core of people who think that it's a GREAT game (8-10) and continue to play it and buy stuff for it.
As far as the game's future is concerned, all the people who don't love it enough to continue investing in it can rank it as a 1.
But really, that goes for any game. You'd rather have 20 people rank it 10 and 80 people rank it 1 for an average score of 2.8, than 100 people rank it 7 for an average score of 7, because in the first case, you'll get 20 long term players, and in the second you'll get zero.
Talys wrote: IIRC, the Boardgamegeek score was very polarized, with people either ranking it extremely low or extremely high.
That actually bodes well for AoS, as everyone thinking the game is a 7/10 (a mediocre game) would be its death knell, since everyone probably ALSO has a game that they rank higher than that. AoS it needs a core of people who think that it's a GREAT game (8-10) and continue to play it and buy stuff for it.
As far as the game's future is concerned, all the people who don't love it enough to continue investing in it can rank it as a 1.
But really, that goes for any game. You'd rather have 20 people rank it 10 and 80 people rank it 1 for an average score of 2.8, than 100 people rank it 7 for an average score of 7, because in the first case, you'll get 20 long term players, and in the second you'll get zero.
That is a very good point. Don't think I have ever seen a game get a more varied/polarized reception.
Talys wrote: IIRC, the Boardgamegeek score was very polarized, with people either ranking it extremely low or extremely high.
That actually bodes well for AoS, as everyone thinking the game is a 7/10 (a mediocre game) would be its death knell, since everyone probably ALSO has a game that they rank higher than that. AoS it needs a core of people who think that it's a GREAT game (8-10) and continue to play it and buy stuff for it.
As far as the game's future is concerned, all the people who don't love it enough to continue investing in it can rank it as a 1.
But really, that goes for any game. You'd rather have 20 people rank it 10 and 80 people rank it 1 for an average score of 2.8, than 100 people rank it 7 for an average score of 7, because in the first case, you'll get 20 long term players, and in the second you'll get zero.
That is a very good point. Don't think I have ever seen a game get a more varied/polarized reception.
I have never even been on boardgamegeek before :0 first time hearing about it... But I also think a lot of the negatives about AoS come from disgruntled ye olde hammer players... Which is understandable but when you are blinded with grief/anger I do not expect an unbiased opinions...
If you're playing AOS for a balanced, competitive game, that's like going to a Bieber concert and expecting a mosh pit.
I'm not saying AOS is bad. (I personally don't like it at all, but that's my opinion.) I'm just saying that certain games lend themselves better to certain styles of play. If one wanted an actually competitive game, they should play one and not try to fit a square peg into a round hole and pretend it's a perfect fit.
MWHistorian wrote: If you're playing AOS for a balanced, competitive game, that's like going to a Bieber concert and expecting a mosh pit.
I'm not saying AOS is bad. (I personally don't like it at all, but that's my opinion.) I'm just saying that certain games lend themselves better to certain styles of play. If one wanted an actually competitive game, they should play one and not try to fit a square peg into a round hole and pretend it's a perfect fit.
These people went to a Bieber concert and they had a mosh pit and they all had fun.
Well, it is, kind of, a situation where AoS became competitive and, to be honest, that's how I imagined GW's policy on competitive play for AoS - give bare-bones rules, maybe add some more later on (even print another 4 page "expansion" to them) and have the stores and groups come up with their own comps for their events/play. Kinda like saying "people always houserule our stuff, so why not let them do it from the ground and just give them a core set of rules to work with". Not saying that this is good or bad, or using it as justification for any GW's action, but I sometimes feel like that's what they had in mind while developing AoS.
Notice that pretty much every single unit in those army compendia is properly designed, the rules for them fit them perfectly and give you the feel of that unit very well (I even believe that better than some 8th ed books did) and they even came up with cool, thematic formations for all the armies. I don't think you can nitpick about too much when it comes to the warscrolls, it's just the controversial core rules that make people go nuts and I feel like it's not just "a stupid thing for GW to do" but a carefully planned move on their side that they had their own reasons to make.
Ken52682 wrote: Any game can be made to work and fun with enough tweaking and house ruling. The fact that AOS requires extensive tweaking makes it a bad game. I originally come from boardgaming where a game is considered good if the rules are balanced, tight, thematic, and flows smoothly out of the box. Aos fits none of these criteria. Imagine what rating AOS would get on Boardgamegeek.com. Maybe a 4.0... or less?
did the tournament in question require "extensive" tweaking and what do you define extensive... A lot of people claim AoS needs a lot of tweaking but in reality most of the tweaking is very benign.
Well, just the tweaks to the rules pamphlet are the same length as the rules pamphlet. I think most people would call that extensive. In addition there is 18 pages worth of a scratch build point system.
Furthermore, the tweaks outright remove a lot of the things that are unique to AoS, like measuring from the model, unrestricted summoning, and pantomime.
Klerych wrote: I don't think you can nitpick about too much when it comes to the warscrolls, it's just the controversial core rules that make people go nuts and I feel like it's not just "a stupid thing for GW to do" but a carefully planned move on their side that they had their own reasons to make.
In a very high number of cases, rules one would think would be standardised aren't. For example, there were (at my last counting) more than twenty variations of shields, with more than fifty different names. Similarly, standard bearers, musicians, and paired weapons don't have standardised rules.
Given that this increases the bar of entry, this is rather baffling to me.
I had a look at the NOVA rules pack. Were similar tweaks to the core rules used in this tournament? I'm very curious about one thing - what does players and organizers find so insulting about shooting in and out of combat? Has it really been so bad in people's games that they decided to nerf it or is it just a carry over from oldhammer? Is it a firm belief that units once in close combat shouldn't be able to shoot because it is more realistic or is it a continuation of a tradtion as many of the most popular games so far has imposed some kind of serious disadvantage on it? Is it some self imposed restriction that shooty units, once reached with another unit in melee, should lose half of their abilities (I know that they can just run off and continue shooting but still...) ?
My 2 armies are mostly devoid from shooting units so I can't claim to have much experience with them, but there are some and it never bothered me.
P.S. I had a look at the clash of swords pack aswell and it appears shooting was not touched. Were any complains about it being overpowered at the tournament?
The core rules give some support to the idea that missile weapons are to be used in the shooting phase only, through the ambiguity of the statement made on the subject, which says that missile weapons are used in the shooting phase and melee weapons in the attack phase.
CoreCommander wrote: I'm very curious about one thing - what does players and organizers find so insulting about shooting in and out of combat?
I believe the thought is that shooting is too powerful if there is no way to hard counter it.
I think there are balancing mechanisms in the game already though. For instance, you can only shoot in the shooting phase, while you can perform melee attacks in both your and your opponent's combat phase - so melee combat is twice per round and shooting is only once. If you charge a shooty unit, you'll be able to damage them much quicker than they can damage you, unless they retreat, which loses them the ability to shoot for an entire round, at least. It seems most shooty units have pretty weak missile attacks, hitting or wounding on 4s or 5 and doing 1 damage with no rend.
Units can also charge up to 12", plus whatever they moved that turn, which can be enough to close the gap on Judicators with 12" crossbow ranges. On a table with a lot of terrain, having a unit on or within terrain gives them a +1 to save (unless they made a charge that turn), and terrain blocks line or sight much better than other figures do. So the advantage of range can be countered using smart maneuvering.
CoreCommander wrote: I'm very curious about one thing - what does players and organizers find so insulting about shooting in and out of combat? Has it really been so bad in people's games that they decided to nerf it or is it just a carry over from oldhammer? Is it a firm belief that units once in close combat shouldn't be able to shoot because it is more realistic or is it a continuation of a tradtion as many of the most popular games so far has imposed some kind of serious disadvantage on it?
I think you will struggle to find another game that lets models shoot into and out of combat without any sort of penalty. It's just not very narrative when Model A is being mauled by Model B, but still has no trouble firing his bow at Model C over yonder hill. It would be okay if there was a hefty penalty to hit associated with it, such that only highly skilled archers could pull it off, and not just any random Orc.
Also, my Wolf Riders geared for shooting do more damage on the charge than my Wolf Riders geared for combat. How narrative is that?
I think you will struggle to find another game that lets models shoot into and out of combat without any sort of penalty. It's just not very narrative when Model A is being mauled by Model B, but still has no trouble firing his bow at Model C over yonder hill. It would be okay if there was a hefty penalty to hit associated with it, such that only highly skilled archers could pull it off, and not just any random Orc.
Yes, they can shoot out of combat, but not often. In a worst case scenario, with back to back turns for the opponent, there could be three melee combat phases between shooting phases. So ahead and shoot that guy over yonder, your unit will not make it to the next shooting phase because they ignored their immediate threat.
As for shooting into combat, I don't have a problem with that either. Because of the unit cohesion rules (units must be with 1" of each other, leaving no room for other units to move between), mixed with pile ins, the melee scuffles are less likely to be giant masses of indistinguishable bodies and more like clumps of similar models. If it still bothers you so much, rather than removing the rule altogether, just house rule it that units in melee count as in cover (+1 to saves when in or on terrain features) - but you'd have to define what "in melee" means, as being up to 3" away doesn't seem like it should get cover.
Also, my Wolf Riders geared for shooting do more damage on the charge than my Wolf Riders geared for combat. How narrative is that?
They are shooting as they go in.
Been thinking about this firing into/within combat thing, and had an idea.
I wonder if it is assumed that most combats are not going to take too many turns. If a combat takes just a turn or two, they the shooting can be explained by shooting as the enemy moves in (stand and fire), models in the rear ranks using their missile weapons before diving in, other units picking stragglers from the rear of the enemy, etc.
If you think of it with just a dash of abstraction rather than literally, it kinda works...
Avian wrote: Well, I'm more into narrative games than abstract ones. That's why I don't like it.
But you make your own narrative, if that is what you are looking for - such as the Goblin Wolf Riders shooting as they charge in. I am sure we can find a film or two where something very similar happens.
CoreCommander wrote: I'm very curious about one thing - what does players and organizers find so insulting about shooting in and out of combat? Has it really been so bad in people's games that they decided to nerf it or is it just a carry over from oldhammer? Is it a firm belief that units once in close combat shouldn't be able to shoot because it is more realistic or is it a continuation of a tradtion as many of the most popular games so far has imposed some kind of serious disadvantage on it?
I think you will struggle to find another game that lets models shoot into and out of combat without any sort of penalty. It's just not very narrative when Model A is being mauled by Model B, but still has no trouble firing his bow at Model C over yonder hill. It would be okay if there was a hefty penalty to hit associated with it, such that only highly skilled archers could pull it off, and not just any random Orc.
Also, my Wolf Riders geared for shooting do more damage on the charge than my Wolf Riders geared for combat. How narrative is that?
DBA does it, so does Marechal de l'Empire by Polemos, and the Cry Havoc rules.
Kilkrazy wrote: The core rules give some support to the idea that missile weapons are to be used in the shooting phase only, through the ambiguity of the statement made on the subject, which says that missile weapons are used in the shooting phase and melee weapons in the attack phase.
Frankly I read it the exact same way when I first glanced over the rules. It is wishful thinking though as the shooting phase is still there to use the model's shooting weapons. I can't see the ambiguity, but I understand the need to.
I think there are balancing mechanisms in the game already though. For instance, you can only shoot in the shooting phase, while you can perform melee attacks in both your and your opponent's combat phase - so melee combat is twice per round and shooting is only once. If you charge a shooty unit, you'll be able to damage them much quicker than they can damage you, unless they retreat, which loses them the ability to shoot for an entire round, at least. It seems most shooty units have pretty weak missile attacks, hitting or wounding on 4s or 5 and doing 1 damage with no rend.
These I find to be true most of the time and I think it contributes to the evening out of damage output over time, but I wanted to see if other players will share their experience of overpowered shooting that can't be reasonably dealt with. There are units that indeed offer powerful shooting. The example that comes at once is Judicators with their 24" bows. But then there's this...
Units can also charge up to 12", plus whatever they moved that turn, which can be enough to close the gap on Judicators with 12" crossbow ranges. On a table with a lot of terrain, having a unit on or within terrain gives them a +1 to save (unless they made a charge that turn), and terrain blocks line or sight much better than other figures do. So the advantage of range can be countered using smart maneuvering.
I have daemonettes that move 14", run 2d6" (+1 if near hero) and can also make a charge after their run for an additional 2d6+1". All these total about 30". Judicators can't escape this unit on their own. This is not the only example. My screamers can manage an aprroximate 23" charge and they fly bypassing unit screening. AoS has plenty of fast units.
These factors were already obvious (atleast to me), but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt as I am, sadly, limited by my two armies so I was asking players for in game feedback.
I think you will struggle to find another game that lets models shoot into and out of combat without any sort of penalty. It's just not very narrative when Model A is being mauled by Model B, but still has no trouble firing his bow at Model C over yonder hill. It would be okay if there was a hefty penalty to hit associated with it, such that only highly skilled archers could pull it off, and not just any random Orc.
Also, my Wolf Riders geared for shooting do more damage on the charge than my Wolf Riders geared for combat. How narrative is that?
I think that the fact, that there aren't much games that do that, doesn't necessarily speak ill for AoS. Is there a problem mechanically? I mean, is it so overpowered that it turns out a bad choice? I for one think not, but I'm still waiting for player feedback. Your other point is valid though so I'm checking one for "battle realism/narrative" in my notebook.
Your wolf riders will do almost the same damage on the 1st turn charge and the subsequent enemy phase per model. But the spears have 2" range so more models will be able to fight. I'd say this makes them more suited to CC than bows & slashas.
I have my own little theory about why there is such a liberal attitude to shooting in the rules. I think it is there simply to allow the shooty units, which you bought and brought to shoot stuff down it, to do their thing for the whole duration of the game. I think that the designers imagined it will be more fun that way than having it shoot for 2 turns and than die slowly for another 2. I think it will still die all the same, but you'll be rolling dice and using the bows 'n stuff.
Also, my Wolf Riders geared for shooting do more damage on the charge than my Wolf Riders geared for combat. How narrative is that?
They are shooting as they go in.
Been thinking about this firing into/within combat thing, and had an idea.
I wonder if it is assumed that most combats are not going to take too many turns. If a combat takes just a turn or two, they the shooting can be explained by shooting as the enemy moves in (stand and fire), models in the rear ranks using their missile weapons before diving in, other units picking stragglers from the rear of the enemy, etc.
If you think of it with just a dash of abstraction rather than literally, it kinda works...
Actually you're closer to truth than you would think - in medieval Poland, when the country was actually a powerful kingdom there was a tactic where there was a wedge of knights with long lances and between/behind them there were hundreds of their henchmen/retinue members wielding crossbows. When the whole formation charged on their horses, when the piper gave the signal they all launched hundreds of bolts (per one knight there were at least two, three and sometimes five henchmen they were "covering" with the hollow wedge) above their heads and if there were 100 knights we're looking at a salvo of 300-500 crossbow bolts launched during the charge. I of course forgot the name of the formation, although it could've been purely polish idea anyway, but the final effect was that charged enemy was distracted and thrown into disarray with all those bolts flying (and remember that velocity of the charging horse also added to the velocity of the bolt, which turned them into nigh-unstoppable force - now imagine 300 of those) so the lance-wielding frontal charge was even more effective and, frankly, the guys in the back of the cavalry unit rarely have seen any real combat - cavalry charges were all about jamming your lance into the enemies impaling 3-6 men (there were cases of that) and then disengaging to grab another set of lances and charge again. You never got dragged into combat and stood there, because a horse knight standing still in combat is a dead knight - the horses were -very- rarely armoured, so it was easy to kill it/make it fall and then a knight had a big problem. Yes, he could've stood up easily - a knight's armour didn't weight that much in contrary to popular belief, and even plate armour was very agile, but he was in much more direct danger when he had to pull himself up and was constantly attacked, so they just preferred repeated glorious charges.
So, yeah, charging "ranged" units seem fairly reasonable in some examples. Of course shooting in melee is ridiculous - noone is ever going to let you wind up a crossbow when he's near you. Shooting into melee isn't, though. When it comes to elves just remember Haldir's elves in Lord of the Rings - their aim was terrifying and they had no problem hitting enemies in combat with their arrows. As for human/other archers... I really believe that "you can shoot a unit in melee but only the models that are more than 3" from your models" is a perfect rule. In WFB it was ridiculous that you could've had 10-ranks of 5 men bus and you couldn't shoot it's enormous sides even though those men were nowhere near your soldiers.
Edit: I found the polish name for that cavalry formation, direct english translation would be "wedge crown". Unfortunately google doesn't really say anything (although wikipedia's article on cavalry formations stated that they sometimes used small but powerful cavalry crossbows made of steel), so I assume it was purely a polish invention in those times.
Winding a cross bow may seem ridiculous but so are hammers with a range of 12 game inches.
This is a simple fantasy skirmish game, not a realistic simulation of mediaeval warfare. For that matter, weapons such as javelins, bows and pila can easily be used at short range (pila were specifically designed for it), while the Skink boltshooter is a magic powered raygun if we want to look at fantasy elements.
I'm glad that people are running AoS tournaments with some imposed point system and scenarios for victory conditions.
The fundamental elements of the game are fun, but just meatgrinding each other to bits until one side is gone will get old fast.
I do want to see ranks come back in some way/shape or form, so if you create a frontage and act like a WHFB unit, you can some bonus to bravery, or armor save, at the cost of your mobility (having to wheel etc).
Then again, WHFB was late-medieval, did people actually use ranks that way or did it just degenerate into sprawling brawls? Ranks forming shield walls strikes me as more of a classical period thing, but I'm no historian by any means.
More Dakka wrote: I'm glad that people are running AoS tournaments with some imposed point system and scenarios for victory conditions.
The fundamental elements of the game are fun, but just meatgrinding each other to bits until one side is gone will get old fast.
I do want to see ranks come back in some way/shape or form, so if you create a frontage and act like a WHFB unit, you can some bonus to bravery, or armor save, at the cost of your mobility (having to wheel etc).
Then again, WHFB was late-medieval, did people actually use ranks that way or did it just degenerate into sprawling brawls? Ranks forming shield walls strikes me as more of a classical period thing, but I'm no historian by any means.
Yes formations are always used (however there are always exceptions) throughout history. I think it was not long before WW1/around the start when commanders realized formations are ineffective against firepower never before seen. This was a lesson that should have been learned a lot sooner than it did.
However it is worth noting the way people fight in Warhammer Fantasy Battle is nothing like how they did it in the past.
Well its nice that the people who have accepted AOS are having fun with it, i know its shocking that people who like AoS would have fun playing AoS in a group format but I do wonder when we are going to get passed firing shots at the people who don't like AoS. Saying players had fun playing AoS doesn't suddenly mean the people that don't are wrong.
Im sure it wasn't the intention but the passive aggressive mocking tone of "ohh they had fun internet who knewww!" is really getting tired. People had fun playing AoS maybe people can try talking about a small AoS tourni without feeling the need to belittle others to feel good about it.
Los pollos hermanos wrote: Well its nice that the people who have accepted AOS are having fun with it, i know its shocking that people who like AoS would have fun playing AoS in a group format but I do wonder when we are going to get passed firing shots at the people who don't like AoS. Saying players had fun playing AoS doesn't suddenly mean the people that don't are wrong.
Im sure it wasn't the intention but the passive aggressive mocking tone of "ohh they had fun internet who knewww!" is really getting tired. People had fun playing AoS maybe people can try talking about a small AoS tourni without feeling the need to belittle others to feel good about it.
just like the people who don't like it saying that the game is for simpletons got old real quick, but the critics cry "freedom of speech" everytime they are asked to take their rude comments elsewhere...
it gets just as old to read the critics coming and saying this is the worst game ever, play Warmachine or KoW if you want a "real" game...
as many people have said, the GW fans don't go around to other games' sub-forums slagging them off for enjoying a product, so why have they had to take so much abuse from the critics???
it is not like GW fans made the game...
if you think the AoS people are belittling others, maybe go back and read how many AoS fans have been belittled over the last 6 weeks...
i have not seen any AoS fans "firing shots at the people who don't like AoS" in any kind of equal amount compared to the mean things the critics have been saying...
i have been utterly shocked by the behavior of a few of the detractors in these threads, and lost all respect for anything they have to say...
a little sarcastic response to that is not passive-aggressive, it is sarcasm...
if the critics can do it, so can the fans...
at least the fans don't do it in a vicious hurtful manner...
Los pollos hermanos wrote: Well its nice that the people who have accepted AOS are having fun with it, i know its shocking that people who like AoS would have fun playing AoS in a group format but I do wonder when we are going to get passed firing shots at the people who don't like AoS. Saying players had fun playing AoS doesn't suddenly mean the people that don't are wrong.
Im sure it wasn't the intention but the passive aggressive mocking tone of "ohh they had fun internet who knewww!" is really getting tired. People had fun playing AoS maybe people can try talking about a small AoS tourni without feeling the need to belittle others to feel good about it.
just like the people who don't like it saying that the game is for simpletons got old real quick, but the critics cry "freedom of speech" everytime they are asked to take their rude comments elsewhere...
it gets just as old to read the critics coming and saying this is the worst game ever, play Warmachine or KoW if you want a "real" game...
as many people have said, the GW fans don't go around to other games' sub-forums slagging them off for enjoying a product, so why have they had to take so much abuse from the critics???
it is not like GW fans made the game...
if you think the AoS people are belittling others, maybe go back and read how many AoS fans have been belittled over the last 6 weeks...
i have not seen any AoS fans "firing shots at the people who don't like AoS" in any kind of equal amount compared to the mean things the critics have been saying...
i have been utterly shocked by the behavior of a few of the detractors in these threads, and lost all respect for anything they have to say...
a little sarcastic response to that is not passive-aggressive, it is sarcasm...
if the critics can do it, so can the fans...
at least the fans don't do it in a vicious hurtful manner...
cheers
jah
Most of the locked threads and mod edited comments are from pro AOS players being rude or offensive to others. I have seen very few posts from those who don't like the game being offensive to anyone.
The fans are more rude and vicious than those who don't like it.
Aye, a lot of against AoS players tend to discuss points about balancing and points systems while from what Ive seen they don't actually make hate threads whilst we get a lot of passive aggressive pro threads that are half OP content actually about AoS and the rest are about the people who don't like it.
I mean its not like anti AoS people can go around saying "you don't like it move on, go away, the game doesn't need ignorant old TFG anyway. Tournament players are everything wrong with tabletop" and all the other points Ive seen the past few weeks.
We had a discussion a few weeks ago where it was pointed out that you don't actually see many comments from people who don't like AoS in threads like "AoS army builds" or "What do you choose in said scenario" they generally only comment when OP's bait them with threads with titles that take a smug or aggressive tone towards players who don't like the system. Constantly reigniting the flame war for fun I guess, or to feel superior. The way the new supporters have been treating long time fantasy players who are either slow to adapt or just don't like the system is whats been shocking. Its got the air of new ownership where they have, instead of been given time to look back on fantasies loss have been constantly reminded how great AoS is, how much better it is, how it gets rid of the toxic community, how all those annoying tourniment players are now crying and how funny it is. A shocking lack of respect all round. Who likes to be made out as been a toxic, no fun allowed TFG player just for liking warhammer, not liking AoS or the most horrid crime of all, playing to win.
I still remember the comment from that guy basically saying he was happy AoS killed off the tournament play of warhammer because he personally didn't like playing tournament players and was happy they had their "toys taken away"
So maybe in the next few weeks we can get threads just about AoS without any passive aggressive tone, diminishing the other sides opinions or any bait titles and wording. I doubt people who even hate AoS would feel any need to comment there as they don't like the system anyway so discussing tactics wouldn't appeal to them. When they're not been baited of course. As not an AoS fan myself I wouldn't have even taken notice of this thread if it didn't read like it was written in a mocking dripping with sarcastic tone. Some players had an AoS tourni and had fun, great why has it got to be all "ohh they had funn, how is this possible!! everyones supposed to hate itttt oh dearrrr" and im just thinking Jesus
@Swastakowey: the impression i have gotten from reading these threads has been the exact opposite...
the angry WFB players seem to have been much more aggressive...
i guess both sides feel victimized...
@los pollos hermanos: the sarcasm comes from the anti-AoS people having been so vocally judgemental...
i completely disagree with any claim that the critics only comment because they are baited...
maybe we are reading thing differently because we are coming from opposite perspectives...
jah-joshua wrote: @Swastakowey: the impression i have gotten from reading these threads has been the exact opposite... the angry WFB players seem to have been much more aggressive... i guess both sides feel victimized...
@los pollos hermanos: the sarcasm comes from the anti-AoS people having been so vocally judgemental... i completely disagree with any claim that the critics only comment because they are baited... maybe we are reading thing differently because we are coming from opposite perspectives...
cheers jah
Can you please give examples of those who dislike AOS being rude or offensive to others? Because I don't see it...
Meanwhile we have had a few threads like this (which has already been mod edited to remove the nastiness that usually comes with threads like that)
"And oh what a surprise, another pro AOS thread was locked due to pro AOS nastiness. "
that is exactly the same tone as the title of this thread, yet the OP gets called passive-aggressive...
how is your comment any different???
do you think that the thread you linked was created out of thin air and paranoia, or the fact that the AoS fans are feeling victimized???
i could quote some of the rude things that you have posted yourself in these threads, but that would make it personal...
we are just going to have to accept that we see things completely opposite from one another, and accept that neither side is innocent...
i have no interest in starting an argument with you...
i was just stating, in response to someone elses post, that i have a different impression of what has been going down in these threads that last 6 weeks...
he defended his opinion quite well in the first post of this page...
let's leave it at that...
"And oh what a surprise, another pro AOS thread was locked due to pro AOS nastiness. "
that is exactly the same tone as the title of this thread, yet the OP gets called passive-aggressive...
how is your comment any different???
do you think that the thread you linked was created out of thin air and paranoia, or the fact that the AoS fans are feeling victimized???
i could quote some of the rude things that you have posted yourself in these threads, but that would make it personal...
we are just going to have to accept that we see things completely opposite from one another, and accept that neither side is innocent...
i have no interest in starting an argument with you...
i was just stating, in response to someone elses post, that i have a different impression of what has been going down in these threads that last 6 weeks...
he defended his opinion quite well in the first post of this page...
let's leave it at that...
cheers
jah
My tone? Well my tone was different because I didn't insult mods, people or anything. I was stating the truth, that another thread was locked due to nastiness from a certain group.
That thread was created because someone wants an echo chamber.
Please quote some rude things I said in the AOS forums. Go on...
Well yes, of course we see things differently, just one of us is wrong by the looks of it.
"And oh what a surprise, another pro AOS thread was locked due to pro AOS nastiness. "
that is exactly the same tone as the title of this thread, yet the OP gets called passive-aggressive...
how is your comment any different???
do you think that the thread you linked was created out of thin air and paranoia, or the fact that the AoS fans are feeling victimized???
i could quote some of the rude things that you have posted yourself in these threads, but that would make it personal...
we are just going to have to accept that we see things completely opposite from one another, and accept that neither side is innocent...
i have no interest in starting an argument with you...
i was just stating, in response to someone elses post, that i have a different impression of what has been going down in these threads that last 6 weeks...
he defended his opinion quite well in the first post of this page...
let's leave it at that...
cheers
jah
My tone? Well my tone was different because I didn't insult mods, people or anything. I was stating the truth, that another thread was locked due to nastiness from a certain group.
That thread was created because someone wants an echo chamber.
Please quote some rude things I said in the AOS forums. Go on...
Well yes, of course we see things differently, just one of us is wrong by the looks of it.
You seem to ignore Jah joshua's comment and how you pick on people saying they are passive aggressive and yet you go ahead and do the same thing as well. Jah-joshua was very fair in his comment and actually said that both sides thought they were victimised, and perhaps were rude with each other without knowing it and yet you come in and show everyone how obnoxious you were while trying to claim pity.
On a side note, I think this event was really great because of the hosts and how he went out of his way in the end to check up with the players and get feedback. AoS is a friendly game but when expanded upon can be used for tournaments which I find quite interesting as many places would have their very own houserules as well.
Im not claiming pity, I am refuting their claims of pity. They are claiming pity while their threads are being locked for obvious reasons.
Also I don't think Passive Aggressive is being used in the right context here, because what I said was not passive aggressive (well not by any of the definations I read anyway).
Nobody in the "AOS haters" or "whiners" has called anyone man children, nor have they called anyone "toolfethers" etc. (The list is extensive from one side).
The actual aggression and hate is almost entirely from one side. To say other wise is pretty incorrect. It has nothing to do with point of views.
@Swastakowey: you misread me, mate...
i was asking how your quoted comment was any different from the title of this thread which los pollos called passive-aggressive...
the sarcasm was exactly the same...
jah-joshua wrote: @Swastakowey: you misread me, mate...
i was asking how your quoted comment was any different from the title of this thread which los pollos called passive-aggressive...
the sarcasm was exactly the same...
cheers
jah
No it wasn't exactly the same. At all.
My comment was in no way negative towards anyone (unless you count pointing out what one side consistently does is negative?). It also happens to be that my comment was about something that, unlike in the OP, actually happens (as evident by this very thread and the link provided). I was not being condescending like the OP, nor was I flaming (only to conveniently leave afterwards) to obviously try get attention for something.
Please explain to me how what I said is anything like what the OP said?
how many times are we going to go around in this off-topic circle???
again, you misread me...
i was very specifically referencing the title of this thread...
"60 folks showed up at an Age of Sigmar Tournament and had...FUN?!" is mild sarcasm, and in no way negative towards anyone...
"And oh what a surprise, another pro AoS thread was locked due to pro AoS nastiness.", is also sarcasm...
in fact, the thread you linked was not a pro AoS thread, but a question about why mods are allowing AoS bashing, to which they rightfully responded that people are allowed to voice their opinion, no matter which side of the fence they stand on...
jah-joshua wrote: how many times are we going to go around in this off-topic circle???
again, you misread me...
i was very specifically referencing the title of this thread...
"60 folks showed up at an Age of Sigmar Tournament and had...FUN?!" is mild sarcasm, and in no way negative towards anyone...
"And oh what a surprise, another pro AoS thread was locked due to pro AoS nastiness.", is also sarcasm...
in fact, the thread you linked was not a pro AoS thread, but a question about why mods are allowing AoS bashing, to which they rightfully responded that people are allowed to voice their opinion, no matter which side of the fence they stand on...
cheers
jah
Ok cool, but his sarcasm is actually negative when it gets to the condescending "like the internet will have you believe". It implies a hive mind reaction of fact less opinion for those who are do not like the game (despite the fact nobody is saying AOS can't be fun). So yes the OP is being negative towards another group. Which was part of my original point.
Yes and the person who made it is very much a pro AOS user, that person is also one of the users who had more moderation done than most. That's why I used that example.
not liking the game is an opinion...
there are no facts in a judgement call...
someone either likes the game, or they don't, and both will shape their argument to fit their perspective...
nobody is right or wrong, but both sides have said some things they shouldn't have over the last 6 weeks...
my opinion is that the OP was being sarcastic, not negative, but nothing i say will change your mind, and you are not going to change mine, so we can just call it a draw...
...and yet people who are very clear on how bad they think AoS is and repeatedly state they have no intention of ever playing it still feel somehow entitled to weigh in on AoS discussion, but don't feel the need to drop into other sub-forums to inform people how bad their preferred gaming system is.
The whole point of a forum is discussion, but there's a difference between valid debate and chiming in to do nothing more than piddle on someone's parade. Because that get's people's backs up, and that's when the ad hominem starts. On BOTH sides.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is ample evidence AoS is selling, and people are enjoying playing it, whether vanilla or house ruled.
The issue those who support AoS are having is that those who dislike the game keep saying things like the game is "shallow" "slowed" or is for people who "don't want to think about what they're doing and just throw their dice around"
These are attacks against the game itself, which is fine. You don't like it, you have your opinion, I can't stop you. However, they are also direct inferences about the mindset of those who do enjoy the game and their mental competency.
Every thread in here that involves a discussion on the merits of flaws in the game has instances of people using similar verbiage to make points whilst keeping themselves protected by the rules of the forum because their attacks only infer that the players share the same traits instead of outright saying they do. It is a method used in politics and debates to frazzle your opponent into getting upset and either lashing out, or forgetting their counterpoints.
So yes, you will see more pro AoS people being moded or having threads locked. Those same people are still forced to look at the sideways attack that pushed them to begin insulting those who made it because of the "clever" way they were able to get around the rules themselves.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The issue those who support AoS are having is that those who dislike the game keep saying things like the game is "shallow" "slowed" or is for people who "don't want to think about what they're doing and just throw their dice around"
That last one was said by me and wasn't meant as an attack. Many AOS supporters have said so themselves. It just depends on what you want out of a game. AOS is less complicated and more simple than other wargames. Sorry, but that can't really be argued against. It's not bad or good. It just is. Depends on what the player wants.
I've explained that several times.
Perhaps the problem isn't the people offering criticism of the game, but you taking offense at someone not liking a game you like?
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The issue those who support AoS are having is that those who dislike the game keep saying things like the game is "shallow" "slowed" or is for people who "don't want to think about what they're doing and just throw their dice around"
That last one was said by me and wasn't meant as an attack. Many AOS supporters have said so themselves. It just depends on what you want out of a game. AOS is less complicated and more simple than other wargames. Sorry, but that can't really be argued against. It's not bad or good. It just is. Depends on what the player wants.
I've explained that several times.
Perhaps the problem isn't the people offering criticism of the game, but you taking offense at someone not liking a game you like?
From my viewpoint, there seems to be a lot of condescension coming from those who don't like the game. I like the game. Saying that I 'don't want to think about what I'm doing and just throw my dice around' is kind of insulting. I do like to think about what I'm doing. That's why I'm thoughtful about looking at what my opponent deploys and make careful decisions about what I deploy in return. I am thoughtful about choosing units that combo with each other. I am thoughtful about which units I attack and where I move. I am thoughtful about how to use terrain to my advantage and when to run away from combat. I'm honestly not sure where the idea that no thought is required comes from. Saying no thought is required makes you sound very dismissive and insulting, which I'm sure is not your intent.
Age of Sigmar is no more a child's game than 8th Edition was. It's just far easier to learn than 8th Edition.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The issue those who support AoS are having is that those who dislike the game keep saying things like the game is "shallow" "slowed" or is for people who "don't want to think about what they're doing and just throw their dice around"
That last one was said by me and wasn't meant as an attack. Many AOS supporters have said so themselves. It just depends on what you want out of a game. AOS is less complicated and more simple than other wargames. Sorry, but that can't really be argued against. It's not bad or good. It just is. Depends on what the player wants.
I've explained that several times.
Perhaps the problem isn't the people offering criticism of the game, but you taking offense at someone not liking a game you like?
But that is exactly the issue, you may not mean it as an attack, but it certainly is one. What tone could you possibly have if you told someone to their face that if all they want to do is throw dice around without thinking too much, then sure you can enjoy this game besides one of derision and condescension?
That is where the insults lie from the perspective of those on this side.
Just because you take offence at something doesn't make it offensive.
It really does feel like people here are starting to take things a bit personally. A criticism of the game is in no way a criticism of the people playing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RoperPG wrote: ...and yet people who are very clear on how bad they think AoS is and repeatedly state they have no intention of ever playing it still feel somehow entitled to weigh in on AoS discussion.
While I'm at it I have a problem with the wording of this.
You're damn right I feel entitled to comment on this. As long as I am not breaking any rules, nor trying to drag a conversation off topic, I sure as hell feel entitled to comment on any thread on this forum. That is the whole point of visiting it.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The issue those who support AoS are having is that those who dislike the game keep saying things like the game is "shallow" "slowed" or is for people who "don't want to think about what they're doing and just throw their dice around"
That last one was said by me and wasn't meant as an attack. Many AOS supporters have said so themselves. It just depends on what you want out of a game. AOS is less complicated and more simple than other wargames. Sorry, but that can't really be argued against. It's not bad or good. It just is. Depends on what the player wants.
I've explained that several times.
Perhaps the problem isn't the people offering criticism of the game, but you taking offense at someone not liking a game you like?
The core rules are simple and straightforward and easy to learn, which I think is part of the draw for some AoS players (conversely a detractor for others).
But that doesn't mean the game is shallow or slowed, or whatever adjective, because the depth comes in what you do with those rules, and the hundreds of pages of special rules, and how you choose to play the game.
I believe that the nature of the rules and game will attract people who are looking for a simple and straightforward game, and don't desire any additional depth, simply because they only want occasional play. It will also attract some people who want something else out of it, too; but these two segments may not necessarily make ideal play partners, which is no different than any other game.
jonolikespie wrote: Just because you take offence at something doesn't make it offensive.
That is entirely wrong, and why people are becoming aggressive. People aren't stating opinions in a vacuum, most of the descriptions of why they don't like the game include language where they insult the mental capacity of those that do by attributing mental deficiencies to the game it cannot itself possess. A game cannot be "slowed" or "just want to throw dice around without thinking" those are descriptors used for people. And since some are saying they enjoy the game, you are second handedly attributing those traits to them.
To quote Talladega nights, "just because you say 'with all due respect' doesn't mean you can say whatever you want to me!"
If you feel like people attacking a game is offending you then you are turtling up. It usually happens when someone makes something too much of their identity and it gets to the point that when someone attacks that form of media or art or hobby it is so much of what you view as your personality you take it personally and lash out.
So when someone says AOS is simple (which, even players who like it say is a defining trait of the game) they aren't calling you simple. You need to understand that you are not the game. Then maybe you guys will stop taking game criticism so personally and instead see it as criticism of a game you happen to play.
Doing this will result in you being more happy when someone disagrees with you.
Swastakowey wrote: If you feel like people attacking a game is offending you then you are turtling up. It usually happens when someone makes something too much of their identity and it gets to the point that when someone attacks that form of media or art or hobby it is so much of what you view as your personality you take it personally and lash out.
So when someone says AOS is simple (which, even players who like it say is a defining trait of the game) they aren't calling you simple. You need to understand that you are not the game. Then maybe you guys will stop taking game criticism so personally and instead see it as criticism of a game you happen to play.
Doing this will result in you being more happy when someone disagrees with you.
You have a point, generally speaking.
Online, though, people can be much more hostile: for instance, labelling a game or company is stupid, and implying that people who buy or play such products aren't too bright. Obviously, most people don't think they're dumb, or that their form of the hobby is stupid.
Specifically, as to AoS, that the core rules are simple is pretty factual, and not a bad thing; in comparison, I think both WMH and 40k have rules that are overly complicated, especially in the context of people who enjoy wargaming but don't play it that regularly (you spend too much time looking up rules, or forgetting about them). As you say, it's a defining trait of the game. Some of the best games ever written have very simple rules (like Go).
But the entire game isn't necessarily so simple. It can be, if you and your group want it to be, or it can have a lot more thought and depth strategically as there are many interesting ways to use units and synergies between them that requires exploration and experience beyond the casual. Or, it can be a very involved game from a storytelling perspective. Like any game, AoS works badly when people with different objectives try to make it work together; so someone who wants to play the occasional game here and there, another person who really wants to parade beautiful models, someone who wants to follow the AoS primary storyline, another person who wants to invent their own, and someone who wants to delve into the use of units, factions and their special abilities and wants a strategic challenge may all be better off gaming with people who are looking for the same thing as them.
Frankly, this is the main reason I game with the same group of friends. If I just play with random people at the store, there's such a high likelihood that they're just after something different than me, and wargaming is so time consuming that I don't want to waste my time playing with someone who just wants to essentially play a different game with the same rules.
Considering most of the anti AoS players were saying that there's nothing wrong with implementing optional rules to allow tournament play, which is what this thread is about a first run AoS mini tournament and yet a few days or weeks prior all we had from the pro side was
"AoS doesn't need tournament style rules!"
"It restricts player freedom!"
"Tournament play is what made 8th toxic!"
"Tournament players only want to win they ruined the game!"
"anyone who likes tournmant is just a TFG"
And now pro AoS are praising how great playing AoS is in a tournament set up and then somehow try to rub it in anti AoS players as if its a victory for AoS when thats the very thing most of us were asking for in the first place, things like erm points systems and other ways to let people play tournaments hell we have a thread called "points?! who needs em" wheres the "AoS! who needs it, its trash" thread? thats right we don't make those kind of threads. You won't find hate threads from the anti AoS people on the first page or many others.
So tournament play even mentioned made people go nuts and start calling everyone TFG or out to win or out to suck the fun out of gaming or part of a toxic and failed past and now you're praising an AoS mini tournament as a success.
Make up your minds. We're not going to sit around all the time been AoS's punching bag to make the game feel better than it is by belittling people who don't like it in every thread about the game. I have a challenge for people, anyone who makes an AoS thread try doing it without belittling the people who don't like the game and just talk about the game itself. You might just find, you won't get people been offended all the time when you stop calling them toxic losers from a bygone era.
Los pollos hermanos wrote: Especially considering most of the anti AoS players were saying that there's nothing wrong with implementing optional rules to allow tournament play, which is what this thread is about a first run AoS mini tournament and yet a few days or weeks prior all we had from the pro side was
"AoS doesn't need tournament style rules!"
"It restricts player freedom!"
"Tournament play is what made 8th toxic!"
"Tournament players only want to win they ruined the game!"
And now pro AoS are praising how great playing AoS is in a tournament set up. Make up your minds.
Like I just said, it's all about finding like-minded gamers: people who want the same thing out of a game (ANY game) as you.
In most of the past, most people were referring to pickup games. All of the advantages of AoS with respect to no points and the problems with competitive players is relative to people who don't want a more relaxed, "bring what you want, play what you want type of play, and using Rules as Written.
It doesn't mean that you can't take AoS, bolt on a comp system and play a tournament (and have fun) if you prefer to do that kind of thing. By the same token, nothing stops you from throwing away the whole WMH or 40k point system and just playing it based on what you perceive as balance.
However...
How the game is WRITTEN will attract the players looking for that sort of game. So if a game shuns competitive, tournament types, there will be *fewer* competitive players and fewer tournaments. If a game is a great competitive game, it will attract more of those sorts of people, and the likelihood of running into them when you play a game will be higher.
Likewise, if most of the material for a game that comes out follows a story line, then the people who buy into the game will have a large number that enjoy that story line. Not *everyone*, but a lot of the fans will be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Los pollos hermanos wrote: Make up your minds. We're not going to sit around all the time been AoS's punching bag to make the game feel better than it is by belittling people who don't like it in every thread about the game. I have a challenge for people, anyone who makes an AoS thread try doing it without belittling the people who don't like the game and just talk about the game itself. You might just find, you won't get people been offended all the time when you stop calling them toxic losers from a bygone era.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I like AoS (as in, I enjoy it), and I've never called anyone who prefers any other game, or style of play, anything remotely like a toxic loser from a bygone era >.<
I can say that for ANY tabletop wargame, I no longer enjoy playing against ultracompetitive tournament types. It doesn't mean I have anything against them; I would just rather play with someone interested in nice models, an interesting scenario that had thought and preparation beyond what would be found at a tournament, and relative army parity at Turn 1.
Swastakowey wrote: If you feel like people attacking a game is offending you then you are turtling up. It usually happens when someone makes something too much of their identity and it gets to the point that when someone attacks that form of media or art or hobby it is so much of what you view as your personality you take it personally and lash out.
So when someone says AOS is simple (which, even players who like it say is a defining trait of the game) they aren't calling you simple. You need to understand that you are not the game. Then maybe you guys will stop taking game criticism so personally and instead see it as criticism of a game you happen to play.
Doing this will result in you being more happy when someone disagrees with you.
You have a point, generally speaking.
Online, though, people can be much more hostile: for instance, labelling a game or company is stupid, and implying that people who buy or play such products aren't too bright. Obviously, most people don't think they're dumb, or that their form of the hobby is stupid.
Specifically, as to AoS, that the core rules are simple is pretty factual, and not a bad thing; in comparison, I think both WMH and 40k have rules that are overly complicated, especially in the context of people who enjoy wargaming but don't play it that regularly (you spend too much time looking up rules, or forgetting about them). As you say, it's a defining trait of the game. Some of the best games ever written have very simple rules (like Go).
Is it implying that people who buy from a stupid company are stupid as a result? Because it feels like you made that company your identity and are now annoyed that your identity is being labeled as stupid. I think the price of cheese is stupid, I don't consider myself silly for buying it, because cheese is pretty important to eat sometimes and it can last a long time. However the price does not need to be the height it is. Are you saying I am implying that I am a stupid man for buying cheese? The same can be said for Petrol and many other things I think are badly priced. Or when a Movie Series I like starts to suck and I say the director is stupid, this does not mean I am implying the people who watch his films are stupid (especially since I just mentioned I liked his previous movies).
I haven't played warmachine, but 40k is not complicated, it's just poorly formatted. Which makes remembering rules a pain, finding them a pain and then finding them in game a pain. But the rules themselves are not comples.
But the entire game isn't necessarily so simple. It can be, if you and your group want it to be, or it can have a lot more thought and depth strategically as there are many interesting ways to use units and synergies between them that requires exploration and experience beyond the casual. Or, it can be a very involved game from a storytelling perspective. Like any game, AoS works badly when people with different objectives try to make it work together; so someone who wants to play the occasional game here and there, another person who really wants to parade beautiful models, someone who wants to follow the AoS primary storyline, another person who wants to invent their own, and someone who wants to delve into the use of units, factions and their special abilities and wants a strategic challenge may all be better off gaming with people who are looking for the same thing as them.
Frankly, this is the main reason I game with the same group of friends. If I just play with random people at the store, there's such a high likelihood that they're just after something different than me, and wargaming is so time consuming that I don't want to waste my time playing with someone who just wants to essentially play a different game with the same rules.
In most of the past, most people were referring to pickup games. All of the advantages of AoS with respect to no points and the problems with competitive players is relative to people who don't want a more relaxed, "bring what you want, play what you want type of play, and using Rules as Written.
I don't take criticisms of a game personally, but when the statements mentioned above come with a "... But if you enjoy that kind of game, then you are entitled to that opinion."
That is a veiled insult, and it's the exact type of thing I was referring to.
I never disagreed that tournaments can be had, what I disagree whole hartedly with are the people saying the game is unplayable without points and shouldn't even be considered for pickup games. That viewpoint IS toxic, and entirely false. Those are the comments that bother me.
In regards to the purchasing of cheese, if you had never bought cheese, and went to the store and everyone there with cheese spent the whole time telling you that cheese is over priced and not as good as it used to be. Would you bother picking up cheese?
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I don't take criticisms of a game personally, but when the statements mentioned above come with a "... But if you enjoy that kind of game, then you are entitled to that opinion."
That is a veiled insult, and it's the exact type of thing I was referring to.
I never disagreed that tournaments can be had, what I disagree whole hartedly with are the people saying the game is unplayable without points and shouldn't even be considered for pickup games. That viewpoint IS toxic, and entirely false. Those are the comments that bother me.
In regards to the purchasing of cheese, if you had never bought cheese, and went to the store and everyone there with cheese spent the whole time telling you that cheese is over priced and not as good as it used to be. Would you bother picking up cheese?
Ummm, no it's not. Saying a game is simple, but it's ok if you like that kind of thing is not a veiled insult. Again, you are taking it personally for no reason.
Most people criticise this game for the rules AND the lack of points which makes the rules even worse (by rules I mean the most common, like line of site rules or measuring from the models and many more). The view that this game has revolutionized the gaming world and is something new and amazing above it's competitors however is toxic, because AOS brings nothing new (except sigmarines, if you can call them new) and ultimately shows a lack of experience in other games. I have seen some people dislike the lack of points system and have mentioned the problems that can result from a lack of points, and apparently the solution, according to some, is to not play dirt bags... I wonder which view point is more toxic. The one that decries a group dirt bags or the group that looks at rules to help close the gap between different play styles?
If I never had cheese, and many people warned against it, then no I would not buy cheese. Why? Because if it's that bad to warrant that kind of reaction, I would avoid it and try another food for the money. Which I hope people do when they google AOS and find a game with very polarized ratings.
@Swastakowey: so it is toxic to say that AoS is fun, but not toxic to say that you wish people would be put off picking up the game by the criticisms???
you have just illustrated why i keep saying that both sides have behaved poorly...
better to let people enjoy what they want, rather than actively trying to kill the game...
live and let live...
jah-joshua wrote: @Swastakowey: so it is toxic to say that AoS is fun, but not toxic to say that you wish people would be put off picking up the game by the criticisms??? you have just illustrated why i keep saying that both sides have behaved poorly... better to let people enjoy what they want, rather than actively trying to kill the game... live and let live...
cheers jah
Again, you cannot read or something. It's toxic to lie about a game yes. I never said toxic to like it.
If a movie critic says a movie sucked, would you criticize him because he "won't let people like the movie and is actively trying to kill the fan base"? Is it not the point of criticism to encourage/discourage people from wasting time on it?
i can read just fine, i simply don't accuse people of lying for expressing their feeling about AoS...
you can disagree with their opinion without making it an attack, but calling AoS fans views a lie is not the way to get anyone to open their mind to your view...
jah-joshua wrote: i can read just fine, i simply don't accuse people of lying for expressing their feeling about AoS...
you can disagree with their opinion without making it an attack, but calling AoS fans views a lie is not the way to get anyone to open their mind to your view...
cheers
jah
Im not... when people say no points is revolutionary they are spreading false information. Because no points systems have been around for a long time. Im not attacking anyone, but their misleading facts about a game being amazing for X reasons when (as it's been pointed out endlessly that all games do X) they are spreading "toxic" information about a game.
See, again, you think im attacking people when not once have I attacked anyone. If someone says "I like this game, even though it's flawed etc" like bottle does then that's fine. I am not attacking anyone who likes this game.
If you go looking you'll probably find most cases of people saying Anti AoS players are attacking people are in fact them attacking the game system and its fans internalizing it and taking it as if AoS is them personally and its a personal attack. Ive not seen any anti AoS players attacking pro AoS players personally, they stick to talking about the games flaws and its system. Ive never heard them target an individual and go "You are an awful player, you are a toxic player and everything wrong with this game" unlike some.
Most Anti comments ive seen have been along the lines of:
"The games super flawed and simply written" - that is not in anyway a personal attack it is about the game system.
Where as ive seen pro AoS players saying things like
"You don't like it leave, GW doesn't need your type of players anyway. This game is for those who actually like having fun and not just been one of those play to win guys nobody likes. Im glad its swept away the toxic tournament players"
Which is why pro commenters are getting more MOD edits and closed down threads. As of recent months considering how recent the closing of WHFB was i was rather saddened by the hostile "your time is over get out" attitude displayed towards fantasy players who didn't immediately pick up AoS and love it. It generated such a sudden hate wave for the old game that anyone not loving AoS was branded old hat TFG we had thread after threads laughing at 8th and saying how great AoS for washing away the toxic communities of old players, insult thread after insult thread half talking about how great AoS is and how awful fantasy and its players are. Players who were naturally sad to see their system go and didn't like the new system were basically told to GTFO of the now AoS forum, no sympathy or understanding just immediate biting of the hand that used to feed them. We're the new kids in town sort of attitude sprang up. Its not surprising people who didn't like AoS got tired of been insulted and having their system dragged through the dirt all for the sake of making AoS look better than it is and getting shouted down when they tried to bring up legitimate points and worries about the system or its structure.
If you go looking you'll probably find most cases of people saying Anti AoS players are attacking people are in fact them attacking the game system and its fans internalizing it and taking it as if AoS is them personally and its a personal attack. Ive not seen any anti AoS players attacking pro AoS players personally, they stick to talking about the games flaws and its system. Ive never heard them target an individual and go "You are an awful player, you are a toxic player and everything wrong with this game" unlike some.
Most Anti comments ive seen have been along the lines of:
"The games super flawed and simply written" - that is not in anyway a personal attack it is about the game system.
Where as ive seen pro AoS players saying things like
"You don't like it leave, GW doesn't need your type of players anyway. This game is for those who actually like having fun and not just been one of those play to win guys nobody likes. Im glad its swept away the toxic tournament players"
This is exactly what is happening.
Personally I think it has a lot to do with the fact that AOS players can't defend the game without making it entirely personal opinion. We see this with "it works for me and I have no problems so the game is fine" Or "just don't play dirtbags" and the list goes on. Obviously an argument like that runs out pretty quick so they can either concede or lash out at the people who criticize the game. I don't know though, that's just speculation on my part.
@Swastakowey: if someone has never played a game with no points before, then AoS is revolutionary to them...
they are stating their opinion, not spreading lies...
calling someone a liar for having a different opinion is an attack...
just because someone doesn't share your opinion of a games flaws is no reason to call them a liar...
if you want your opinion to be accepted as valid criticism, then you need to allow the same respect to the other side's views...
jah-joshua wrote: if someone has never played a game with no points before, then AoS is revolutionary to them...
they are stating their opinion, not spreading lies...
calling someone a liar for having a different opinion is an attack...
just because someone doesn't share your opinion of a games flaws is no reason to call them a liar...
if you want your opinion to be accepted as valid critisism, then you need to allow the same respect to the other side's views...
cheers
jah
'To Them"
So in other words they are misinformed and are spreading false information because they did not do any research or to back up their claim. If this was done in a business or in school that would mean they failed.
I have endlessly said I respect peoples views if they are correct. But saying a game is revolutionary is lying, saying "I have never played a game with no points before" would be the correct way to say it. They are attempting to make AOS out to be something it is not.
@Swastakowey: again, they are not spreading false information, they are opening their eyes to new possibilities, and having their own opinion...
if you are going to tell people that they should respect your critiques, and not take them personally, then you need to give them the same freedom to express their views without calling them liars...
@los pollos hermanos: please, there have been many anti-AoS comments that were rude and condescending...
neither side is innocent here...
it is very disingenuous to try and say that "the game is super flawed and simply written" has been the extent of the criticism...
some pretty horrible things have been said about anyone who is pro-AoS...
this merry-go-round isn't going to stop anytime soon, if both sides keep protesting their innocence, instead of agreeing to disagree, and leaving it at that...
how would you guys suggest we move on from here???
jah-joshua wrote: @Swastakowey: again, they are not spreading false information, they are opening their eyes to new possibilities, and having their own opinion...
if you are going to tell people that they should respect your critiques, and not take them personally, then you need to give them the same freedom to express their views without calling them liars...
@los pollos hermanos: please, there have been many anti-AoS comments that were rude and condescending...
neither side is innocent here...
it is very disingenuous to try and say that "the game is super flawed and simply written" has been the extent of the criticism...
some pretty horrible things have been said about anyone who is pro-AoS...
this merry-go-round isn't going to stop anytime soon, if both sides keep protesting their innocence, instead of agreeing to disagree, and leaving it at that...
how would you guys suggest we move on from here???
cheers
jah
Again, yes it is them spreading false information... because it is not true.
Please provide examples of both sides being nasty and not just one side? If you can do that like we have then maybe you will get somewhere.
@Swastakaowey: i'm not about to repeat the insults, and drag this thing even more off -topic...
since you insist that you are right, and my impression is wrong, and that people having their own opinion about AoS is spreading false information, i guess we will just have to leave it at that...
i am done going around and around...
all i can say is that i disagree with you, and leave it at that...
you are welcome to your opinion, too...
jah-joshua wrote: @Swastakaowey: i'm not about to repeat the insults, and drag this thing even more off -topic...
since you insist that you are right, and my impression is wrong, and that people having their own opinion about AoS is spreading false information, i guess we will just have to leave it at that...
i am done going around and around...
all i can say is that i disagree with you, and leave it at that...
you are welcome to your opinion, too...
cheers
jah
I think it's because you can't actually find any, because there are none/very few.
It being an opinion does not stop it being false information. I can't say the world is flat and then get annoyed because people telling me my opinion is wrong (because it is).
But you know what is really annoying, how you are wording this. "if people are saying their opinion is spreading false information" is not at all what I am saying. I think you know this too. If someones opinion is false information then it's not rocket science that it's false yea?
Swastakowey, Los pollos hermanos, and MWHistorian you are all validating what I said in that oh so offensive post I made.
Everytime you show up in a thread it derails 50 miles off track off into either a meta discussion about what the definition of a "good" game is or a long winded appeal to emotion about how you're all being persecuted.
You don't like the game. We get it. You've told us in just about every thread. Why are you here?
Its possible to disagree and criticize while still creating productive peaceful discussion, Killkrazy is an example of someone who does that. He has multiple times brought up points of AoS he thinks could have been better, but he doesn't attack people, doesn't make veiled insults by implying the game was made for uncultured troglodytes, and even suggests his own solutions which lead to discussion. His posts don't derail the conversation, they add to it.
Now what about all of you. How are any of you facilitating discussion? Heck what's the point of this thread now? The last of any actual discussion is back on page one, on the other side of 2.5 pages of arguing.
All you ever post is rediculous hatred against a system that people are enjoying and then expect them to take it lying down. Even when people discuss modifications to make the system work with other forms of play, you attack it because "good systems shouldn't need any modification" as if thats a realistic expectation. No system possibly works right in every context of play because many of them are mutually exclusive.
But none of you will ever accept that, because you aren't here to discuss, you're here to gakpost and troll because for whatever reason it makes you feel better to think you are making us as miserable as you are. No one intentionally "discusses" a hobby they know they will never like unless they're angry and bitter.
how would you guys suggest we move on from here???
Simple really, I only came to browse as I had assumed the drama dirt throwing was over. More threads now just read like "AoS tactics" or "Do you position your terrain" and there's no conflict in those threads because its just people talking about the game but IT seems I was wrong when I spotted this thread, once again talking in a demeaning, rather insulting passive aggressive tone towards people who have really stopped caring at this point. It feels like someone trying to rake it all back up again there was no need to make a thread about having an AoS tournament and how it went about the players who dislike AoS other than to atleast attempt some resemblance or trying to 'rub their faces in how great the system is and prove them wrong'
How would I suggest moving on from here? simple people should just make threads about AoS without having to go low brow insults. Do you think there would have been any drama had the thread just been
"Heres the results of our first AoS tournament, discuss" or "First AoS mini tournament it was great!" and not dripping with insulting sarcasm
"wwwhhhaa the inturnet says Aos suckksss hoow can you have fffunnnnnn?!" *in mocking of anti AoS players tone as if we lack brain cells*
just like all the other straight forward threads about AoS without any condescending attitude I doubt it. We're not here to stop peopkle playing AoS my good friend loves the system and we still get along. Im here to say its time to stop insulting the other player base, the none AoS fans, its time threads like this leave them alone instead of making them the butt of a joke.
Just go look at the other threads about AoS that doesn't attempt to insult people, you'll see fans of AoS discussing AoS, no drama.
Everytime you show up in a thread it derails 50 miles off track off into either a meta discussion about what the definition of a "good" game is or a long winded appeal to emotion about how you're all being persecuted.
You don't like the game. We get it. You've told us in just about every thread. Why are you here?
Its possible to disagree and criticize while still creating productive peaceful discussion, Killkrazy is an example of someone who does that. He has multiple times brought up points of AoS he thinks could have been better, but he doesn't attack people, doesn't make veiled insults by implying the game was made for uncultured troglodytes, and even suggests his own solutions which lead to discussion. His posts don't derail the conversation, they add to it.
Now what about all of you. How are any of you facilitating discussion? Heck what's the point of this thread now? The last of any actual discussion is back on page one, on the other side of 2.5 pages of arguing.
All you ever post is rediculous hatred against a system that people are enjoying and then expect them to take it lying down. Even when people discuss modifications to make the system work with other forms of play, you attack it because "good systems shouldn't need any modification" as if thats a realistic expectation. No system possibly works right in every context of play because many of them are mutually exclusive.
But none of you will ever accept that, because you aren't here to discuss, you're here to gakpost and troll because for whatever reason it makes you feel better to think you are making us as miserable as you are. No one intentionally "discusses" a hobby they know they will never like unless they're angry and bitter.
I have, on multiple occasions brought up what I think would make AOS better. I have not attacked anyone. I don't feel persecuted, I stated that your end of the spectrum are the ones creating all the problems with the mods in response to some guy making crap up.
What I find most interesting about your side of the stick, is how much you like to assume things about others:
People who hate this game are TFG that we don't need
I have, on multiple occasions, been told I must be horrible to play with (because they know, somehow?)
That I don't care about fun and or don't care about the hobby?
And now, that we are miserable somehow? Come on man, you can do better than that.
I know YOU have seen my post a lot, however some kid in a few years time might not, or some browser who happens to look today might not. I would hate for them to see an echo chamber of positivity and think the game is worth starting. Especially at GW prices. Also I have to respond to the jabs at other wargames because you feel superior for playing a game.
Also Age of Sigmar is not the hobby, wargaming is the hobby and I love it. In fact I play 3 times a week with my mates. We 3d print terrain, play lots of games, have painted armies, have a large club that grows and we host events etc.
So enough of the random judgements yea? When assume you make an ass of yourself.
The point of this thread is pointing out the nasty behavior one side continually displays at the moment I think.
I know YOU have seen my post a lot, however some kid in a few years time might not, or some browser who happens to look today might not. I would hate for them to see an echo chamber of positivity and think the game is worth starting. Especially at GW prices.
So because you don't like the game, we are misleading people. So because you don't like the game, we aren't allowed to have new players. So because you don't like the game, we can't have positive productive threads or thatd be an "echo chamber of positivity right"?
Seriously mate how self centered are you?
Oh and thank god for you Swastakowey! I'm so proud that you took it upon yourself to defend the poor mentally stunted fools who might see a GW product you don't like and actually spend their money on it. Because that how GW gets you ya know. Someone expresses positivity about their games or models, and then someone sees it and immediate is robbed at gunpoint for overpriced miniatures.
Swastakowey wrote:Also I have to respond to the jabs at other wargames because you feel superior for playing a game.
Oh hey kettle, meet pot and skillet and 12 piece cast iron pan set.
Swastakowey wrote:Also Age of Sigmar is not the hobby, wargaming is the hobby and I love it. In fact I play 3 times a week with my mates. We 3d print terrain, play lots of games, have painted armies, have a large club that grows and we host events etc.
Every strawman you can get huh? Oh and thank you for explaining the hobby to me, because clearly I'm indocrinated into the HHHobby right? I couldn't possibly know about playing other games, or making my own terrain, or participating in events.
Swastakowey wrote:So enough of the random judgements yea? When assume you make an ass of yourself.
I couldn't possibly know how to make judgements or assumptions, I enjoy a game with only 4 pages of rules.
The point of this thread is pointing out the nasty behavior one side continually displays at the moment I think.
The point of this thread was for Op to talk about a tournament that had recently happened. Nice to know that its ok to just willy nilly derail threads when ever you want.
Jack Flask wrote: So because you don't like the game, we are misleading people. So because you don't like the game, we aren't allowed to have new players. So because you don't like the game, we can't have positive productive threads or thatd be an "echo chamber of positivity right"?
You know I have not seen 1 single example of an 'anti-AoS' person on this forum suggesting a 'pro-AoS' person leave the thread, nor a thread started with 'non positivity' in the title. I have seen examples of both from the 'pro' side telling people who don't like AoS their opinions are not wanted here.
Fun fact, people on this website are entitled to their opinions.
I know YOU have seen my post a lot, however some kid in a few years time might not, or some browser who happens to look today might not. I would hate for them to see an echo chamber of positivity and think the game is worth starting. Especially at GW prices.
So because you don't like the game, we are misleading people. So because you don't like the game, we aren't allowed to have new players. So because you don't like the game, we can't have positive productive threads or thatd be an "echo chamber of positivity right"?
Seriously mate how self centered are you?
Oh and thank god for you Swastakowey! I'm so proud that you took it upon yourself to defend the poor mentally stunted fools who might see a GW product you don't like and actually spend their money on it. Because that how GW gets you ya know. Someone expresses positivity about their games or models, and then someone sees it and immediate is robbed at gunpoint for overpriced miniatures.
No, where did I say that?
See, when people look at spending a lot of money like say a car, a hobby or a house, they normally do research first. If the world ran the way you think it should, nobody would say anything negative about anything and then nobody would know what ios and what is not worth buying. If I don't think something is good, I will say it is not good. Like wise if something is good I will also say so. I find it helpful when others do the same so I know what to and not to spend my money on. Does this make me self centered? or are you just angry your little game is not getting glowing reviews all round?
See you can exaggerate all you want and try twist what im saying, but really you are just blowing this way out of proportion.
Swastakowey wrote:Also I have to respond to the jabs at other wargames because you feel superior for playing a game.
Oh hey kettle, meet pot and skillet and 12 piece cast iron pan set.
Ummm I don't feel superior for anything? I attack the game not people. Unlike others on this forum (glares at you...)
Swastakowey wrote:Also Age of Sigmar is not the hobby, wargaming is the hobby and I love it. In fact I play 3 times a week with my mates. We 3d print terrain, play lots of games, have painted armies, have a large club that grows and we host events etc.
Every strawman you can get huh? Oh and thank you for explaining the hobby to me, because clearly I'm indocrinated into the HHHobby right? I couldn't possibly know about playing other games, or making my own terrain, or participating in events.
Straw Man? Dude, you claimed the hobby was AOS JUST THEN (claimed I attacked the hobby, when in fact I am attacking part of the hobby), if you think this means im attacking you and not your argument you are plain wrong (what a surprise) because you tried to argue AOS was the hobby mate.
Swastakowey wrote:So enough of the random judgements yea? When assume you make an ass of yourself.
I couldn't possibly know how to make judgements or assumptions, I enjoy a game with only 4 pages of rules.
The point of this thread is pointing out the nasty behavior one side continually displays at the moment I think.
The point of this thread was for Op to talk about a tournament that had recently happened. Nice to know that its ok to just willy nilly derail threads when ever you want.
For something you don't know how to do you are awfully good at it mate, natural talent maybe?
No the point of this thread was a poor attempt at trying to feel superior over others for managing to fix a bad game and play it. However as many pointed out his assertion of what "the internet says" is not only incorrect but also very flame baity, which is likely so that the person can try draw attention to the event.
Also I was not the one to derail the thread. Read it, someone tried to play victim... despite, as many have pointed out, being part of the group who is being pretty immature.
Aren't people that play AoS worried that in other places where their kind of "fun" or comp or house rule is not used the game may not be seen as good, but a new player looking at the pro AoS posts may get the false idea that it actualy is. There are people having tons of fun geting whiped, but one could hardly argue that geting whiped is a good past time for most. Unhouse ruled AoS is hard to play, and in places where model cost is a realy important factor it, becomes hard to enjoy and hard to start up. It is awesome that some people play in places where, if their opponents have an army beating them every time, they can just go and ask them to buy a new one and they do. It is awesome, and has my envy, that people with huge across faction collections find new ways and new combos compering to what WFB brought. Win to them, but when I see people talking stuff about no point limits being awesome, or low cash or model entry point in to the game that gets me wondering, if am looking at the same unit stats.
You don't like the game. We get it. You've told us in just about every thread. Why are you here?
You like the game. We get it. You've told us in just about every thread. Why are you here?
I play lots of games that don't need modifications. But that's not what I've been saying.
So, saying "AOS is a simple game with to little depth for me, but could work for you," is spewing out hate? Ok. How about this, "Lack of army creation structure makes it difficult for pick up games." Toxic? Venemous? Hardly. You may disagree, but that doesn't make my opinion invalid. (It's all opinion, btw. That's kinda the point of a discussion board...you know, to share opinions?)
Take a step back, calm down and stop taking criticism to AOS so personal.
Makumba wrote: Aren't people that play AoS worried that in other places where their kind of "fun" or comp or house rule is not used the game may not be seen as good, but a new player looking at the pro AoS posts may get the false idea that it actualy is.
I think people are more worried that people looking at ant-AoS posts will never try the game for themselves. It's better to lose 2 hours and decide that the game is not for you than not trying it at all.
Eyeballing works just fine for me. Well I've got only two armies so my pool is pretty small and I'm putting them against each other, so this goes against me, but nevertheless I manage. With experience people will learn to do it cross-army wide. I'm not going to touch on the sensitive topic about big model collections, advantages they give and game balance. It is being discussed virtually everywhere on the AoS forums.
CoreCommander wrote: I think people are more worried that people looking at ant-AoS posts will never try the game for themselves. It's better to lose 2 hours and decide that the game is not for you than not trying it at all.
If it means they try a different game instead then I don't think it's a bad thing. If someone is interested enough in wargaming that they are reading posts on the internet about AOS I'd kind of hope they are interested enough to also notice there are other games they can try.
And for an inexperienced gamer, they aren't going to find out how good or bad a game is in the space of a couple of hours, comments from the community are important in making a decision. Damned near any wargame can be fun for a couple of hours when you're new and fresh and interested, it takes some experience to know whether a wargame will continue to be fun for the hundreds of hours you end up having to invest in it, so it's not a bad thing if people read some comments on the internet to get them thinking before they go in to their first game so they know what flaws to be looking out for and whether those flaws will hamper their enjoyment over the long run.
The globe is littered with people who thought 40k was fun.... and then quit before they even got finished painting the first 1 or 2 boxed sets of models (as evidenced by ebay ). I don't think we really need more of those sorts of players in wargaming (well.... except for buying cheap stuff of ebay I guess ).
There have been some valid points on discussion made here.
But having a read through some other areas of the forum, you don't have anyone attempting to 'save' people from playing what is - in their opinion - a terrible game.
You can dress it up however you like, but you come across as jilted exes.
There are plenty who are not keen on AoS but frame their criticisms as part of a discussion, rather than thinly veiled inferences or passing off opinion or experience as empirical.
RoperPG wrote: You can dress it up however you like, but you come across as jilted exes.
And it's silly comments like these that keep people coming back to argue about it.
Seriously, if you want to stop people being negative about AoS, stop baiting people who don't like it with thinly veiled insults.
Wasn't an insult, it was an objective statement.
As has been pointed out, there are those who - whilst negative overall about AoS - are still able to engage in positive discussion in an AoS forum.
..and there are those who love to tell people that they don't care about AoS, how bad it is, that they have no intention of playing it ever, etc. etc. -and feel the need to spend the time and energy to drop in to explain that repeatedly - but don't do so with other game systems. That's not freedom of speech, that's full-blown stage 2 on display, and there is no rational explanation for it other than this.
(Give it a few months, and GWHQ will be inundated with people standing outside with boomboxes playing "In Your Eyes")
RoperPG wrote: You can dress it up however you like, but you come across as jilted exes.
And it's silly comments like these that keep people coming back to argue about it.
Seriously, if you want to stop people being negative about AoS, stop baiting people who don't like it with thinly veiled insults.
Wasn't an insult, it was an objective statement. As has been pointed out, there are those who - whilst negative overall about AoS - are still able to engage in positive discussion in an AoS forum. ..and there are those who love to tell people that they don't care about AoS, how bad it is, that they have no intention of playing it ever, etc. etc. -and feel the need to spend the time and energy to drop in to explain that repeatedly - but don't do so with other game systems. That's not freedom of speech, that's full-blown stage 2 on display, and there is no rational explanation for it other than this.
(Give it a few months, and GWHQ will be inundated with people standing outside with boomboxes playing "In Your Eyes")
Maybe thats because this is one of the worst games to come out in a while... I mean, you can't point at other games and ask "why is nobody criticising that game but they are criticising this game?" and THEN come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the people and not the game...
Are you sure the rational reason isn't "this game is controversial and sucks" maybe? Because that sounds like the real reason for the discussions we see here. Not just a bunch of crazies who happen to not like what some like.
Maybe thats because this is one of the worst games to come out in a while... I mean, you can't point at other games and ask "why is nobody criticising that game but they are criticising this game?" and THEN come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the people and not the game...
Are you sure the rational reason isn't "this game is controversial and sucks" maybe? Because that sounds like the real reason for the discussions we see here. Not just a bunch of crazies who happen to not like what some like.
I made no such statement about people vs. game. I was talking about people.
As you are trying to pass off your opinion as objective assessment and then using that as evidence for your astonishing cognitive dissonance, you've just successfully proven my point.
Maybe thats because this is one of the worst games to come out in a while... I mean, you can't point at other games and ask "why is nobody criticising that game but they are criticising this game?" and THEN come to the conclusion that there is something wrong with the people and not the game...
Are you sure the rational reason isn't "this game is controversial and sucks" maybe? Because that sounds like the real reason for the discussions we see here. Not just a bunch of crazies who happen to not like what some like.
I made no such statement about people vs. game. I was talking about people.
As you are trying to pass off your opinion as objective assessment and then using that as evidence for your astonishing cognitive dissonance, you've just successfully proven my point.
the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.
Have I been inconsistent? It's pretty clear I have not changed my attitude at all... In fact I don't see how that relates to anything at all...
Also I was not passing it off as fact, just pointing out that likely the reason all these people (and me I guess) are behaving this way is because the game has flaws and many people are being vocal about those flaws. There is no problem with this is there? I mean there are people who get paid a lot to do this (and normally their comments sections are full of arguments like this too). Its not some "stage 2" or other crap. The game is new, people hate it or like it, there is gonna be people "who love to tell people how bad it is" etc. It's not rocket science.
Please point out where I passed my opinion off as fact? Because I have not told anyone they are wrong for their opinion whilst my opinion is correct. Especially not in the comment you are replying to.
"Maybe because it's on of the worst games to come out in a while"
That is a statement of opinion being put for as factual. You did not say "in my opinion" " feel that" or any number of other ways to ensure peope reading the statement aren't under the impression that you have some insurmountable evidence that validates the statement itself.
You feel the need to 'save' people from AoS, by ensuring this forum is some kind of time capsule.
Yet you say you do not try to pass your opinion off as 'correct'?You ensure that the negatives must be highlighted again and again, as you have claimed that it is not possible to defend the game without resorting to personal opinion. Do you not see the irony there?
You also noticeably do not do the same for other systems.
So that's either cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy.
It is *definitely* anger in either case, whether you realise it or not.
"In my opinion" AOS is the worst game I've seen in a long time. It's overly simplistic, has no balance and little depth. I'm not angry about AOS. I think its ridiculous and silly, but I'm hardly angry about it. (Maybe if I had played WHFB and it had destroyed everything I loved, then sure, I'd be a little tiffed)
However....I see that it might have appeal for some and fit nicely into the kind of game they're looking for. A sweet spot, if you will.
But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.
Roper, you're not a psychologist. Stop psycho analyzing people because you're not very good at it. Why don't you try arguing against their arguments and stop insulting people that disagree with you.
That is a statement of opinion being put for as factual. You did not say "in my opinion" " feel that" or any number of other ways to ensure peope reading the statement aren't under the impression that you have some insurmountable evidence that validates the statement itself.
Huh? The bit you quoted specifically said "maybe". If I said "Maybe pigs can fly", would you take that as meaning I am stating as fact that pigs can fly?
But anyway, I think there's a lot of objective factual flaws in AoS that can be discussed, but obviously the overall "goodness" and "badness" of a game is subjective. Sometimes things are so obviously subjective that people don't bother saying "IMO" because it should be obviously implied that it is opinion
Personally I am of the opinion that 'ignore bases and just place a model on top of another model's base' should be counted as an OBJECTIVE flaw. That is a rule that is going to be directly responsible for damaging people's models (if there were anyone out there who hasn't houseruled it).
MWHistorian wrote: But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.
"AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice."
"Its a game for people that don't want to think."
"AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up."
"I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play."
"It's like the Grateful Dead of Wargames. You need to be chemically inhibited to enjoy it."
Please, do continue to explain how you're not commenting on those people that like AoS.
But kudos on doing it indirectly.
MWHistorian wrote: But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.
"AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice."
"Its a game for people that don't want to think."
"AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up."
"I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play."
"It's like the Grateful Dead of Wargames. You need to be chemically inhibited to enjoy it."
Please, do continue to explain how you're not commenting on those people that like AoS.
But kudos on doing it indirectly.
Way to have ZERO reading comprehension. And way to take sections of quotes out of context in order to distort their meaning. That's actually really dishonest of you.
When I compared it to Saints Row, I said I liked SR for the same reason, I could just shut my brain off. That wasn't an insult.
Also, I said that sometimes just throwing dice can be a good thing and I do it myself on occasion.
Also also, many AOS supporters said they liked AOS because they didn't have to think too much. For example, many have said that not agonizing about army lists and just throw down whatever you want is what draws them to AOS. Many have said that they like not having to worry about tons of rules and just have fun with friends.
Okay, the Greateful Dead quote was a bit meaner than I intended. But I was making fun of the "Beer and Pretzals" thing, as in getting drunk. It was a jab and not a real insult. Once again, it's taken out of context of the conversation around it.
jonolikespie wrote: Personally I am of the opinion that 'ignore bases and just place a model on top of another model's base' should be counted as an OBJECTIVE flaw. That is a rule that is going to be directly responsible for damaging people's models (if there were anyone out there who hasn't houseruled it).
The only thing it says about bases is to not include them when measuring distances. The idea that you can climb upon your opponent's base came from the idea that they don't count as part of the model, so they must be valid terrain. This isn't explicitly stated in the rules, so AoS doesn't necessarily allow or promote the idea - it just doesn't disallow it.
That is a statement of opinion being put for as factual. You did not say "in my opinion" " feel that" or any number of other ways to ensure peope reading the statement aren't under the impression that you have some insurmountable evidence that validates the statement itself.
Huh? The bit you quoted specifically said "maybe". If I said "Maybe pigs can fly", would you take that as meaning I am stating as fact that pigs can fly?
But anyway, I think there's a lot of objective factual flaws in AoS that can be discussed, but obviously the overall "goodness" and "badness" of a game is subjective. Sometimes things are so obviously subjective that people don't bother saying "IMO" because it should be obviously implied that it is opinion
No, because the "maybe" attached to the statement was used as a way to highlight the validity of said statement in response to the position/question it was answering.
It is more like responding to "the sky is green" with "maybe, if the sky wasn't blue"
It is that response that gets under my skin, the statement that a game is inherently bad because you personally don't like some of the game mechanics.
I played RAW and the game is horrible in my opinion. To make the game playable you need to change it a bunch from the original way the game is meant to be played which makes it a bad game in my opinion. A good game should be able to be played as RAW and not need to be house ruled to be playable. It's not the players job to fix the rules it's the game companies job to release good rules. Play AoS as RAW and see if your opinion about the game changes. I get it you can still have fun with a bad game that's not problem, I have played some bad games in my 40 years of life and had fun. PUG are just as bad as 40k which is not a good thing when you rely on going to a game store looking for a game to play, not that 8th edition was any better. AoS is just another example of GW not knowing what the market wants.
That is a statement of opinion being put for as factual. You did not say "in my opinion" " feel that" or any number of other ways to ensure peope reading the statement aren't under the impression that you have some insurmountable evidence that validates the statement itself.
Huh? The bit you quoted specifically said "maybe". If I said "Maybe pigs can fly", would you take that as meaning I am stating as fact that pigs can fly?
But anyway, I think there's a lot of objective factual flaws in AoS that can be discussed, but obviously the overall "goodness" and "badness" of a game is subjective. Sometimes things are so obviously subjective that people don't bother saying "IMO" because it should be obviously implied that it is opinion
No, because the "maybe" attached to the statement was used as a way to highlight the validity of said statement in response to the position/question it was answering.
It is more like responding to "the sky is green" with "maybe, if the sky wasn't blue"
It is that response that gets under my skin, the statement that a game is inherently bad because you personally don't like some of the game mechanics.
Well then your assertion that what he said was stated as fact rather than opinion is entirely based on how you inferred the tone of what was written.
I didn't read the "maybe" as a way to highlight the factual nature of the following statement but rather as a way to offer an alternative solution that is contrary to the one previously presented.
Your example "maybe, if the sky wasn't blue" is flawed because it is not written using the same structure and it is something inherently factual opposed to something you inferred was factual.
You can let it get under your skin or you can accept that maybe it wasn't (or hell, maybe it was!) written with the tone you inferred when you first read it.
What gets under my skin is people who put words in other peoples' mouths, Swasty did not say anything that = "{the} game is inherently bad because you personally don't like some of the game mechanics." (maybe he did elsewhere, but not in the post you quoted, so find a new quote or stop putting words in peoples' mouths).
I've only played it rules as written, and have had no issues whatsoever. None.
What was so wrong with the game, may I ask? How was the terrain placed? Was your opponent (or yourself) intent on showing how bad the system could be? I have seen some people who were deliberately trying to make the game as broken as possible to prove their point, which is literally against the rules.
That is a statement of opinion being put for as factual. You did not say "in my opinion" " feel that" or any number of other ways to ensure peope reading the statement aren't under the impression that you have some insurmountable evidence that validates the statement itself.
Huh? The bit you quoted specifically said "maybe". If I said "Maybe pigs can fly", would you take that as meaning I am stating as fact that pigs can fly?
But anyway, I think there's a lot of objective factual flaws in AoS that can be discussed, but obviously the overall "goodness" and "badness" of a game is subjective. Sometimes things are so obviously subjective that people don't bother saying "IMO" because it should be obviously implied that it is opinion
No, because the "maybe" attached to the statement was used as a way to highlight the validity of said statement in response to the position/question it was answering.
It is more like responding to "the sky is green" with "maybe, if the sky wasn't blue"
It is that response that gets under my skin, the statement that a game is inherently bad because you personally don't like some of the game mechanics.
Well then your assertion that what he said was stated as fact rather than opinion is entirely based on how you inferred the tone of what was written.
I didn't read the "maybe" as a way to highlight the factual nature of the following statement but rather as a way to offer an alternative solution that is contrary to the one previously presented.
Your example "maybe, if the sky wasn't blue" is flawed because it is not written using the same structure and it is something inherently factual opposed to something you inferred was factual.
You can let it get under your skin or you can accept that maybe it wasn't (or hell, maybe it was!) written with the tone you inferred when you first read it.
What gets under my skin is people who put words in other peoples' mouths, Swasty did not say anything that = "{the} game is inherently bad because you personally don't like some of the game mechanics." (maybe he did elsewhere, but not in the post you quoted, so find a new quote or stop putting words in peoples' mouths).
He has stated repeatedly what he doesn't like about AoS, that is fine. Him repeatedly saying afterwards that the game is bad as though it were truth is not. Also, your example to your perceived meaning included something that was inherently false (maybe pigs can fly) so how about this example as a breakdown of conversation.
"I like chipotle."
"I don't like chipotle."
"Why don't you like chipotle?"
"Maybe because it is the worst resteraunt to come out in a while"
See there, it isn't being presented as an opinion, it is a statement that is purely subjective being put forth as an objective truth.
Opinions are like donkey-caves. Everybody's got one. It what you do with it that decides whether people are having a good time or requesting a restraining order.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: "I like chipotle."
"I don't like chipotle."
"Why don't you like chipotle?"
"Maybe because it is the worst resteraunt to come out in a while"
See there, it isn't being presented as an opinion, it is a statement that is purely subjective being put forth as an objective truth.
I can't be the only one who read that example and considered 'it is the worst restaurant to come out in a while' to still be opinion can I?
I know I don't state before every opinion I put forth 'in my opinion', nor do I expect others too... There is a difference between making a statement and stating something as a fact.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: He has stated repeatedly what he doesn't like about AoS, that is fine. Him repeatedly saying afterwards that the game is bad as though it were truth is not. Also, your example to your perceived meaning included something that was inherently false (maybe pigs can fly) so how about this example as a breakdown of conversation.
"I like chipotle." "I don't like chipotle." "Why don't you like chipotle?" "Maybe because it is the worst resteraunt to come out in a while"
See there, it isn't being presented as an opinion, it is a statement that is purely subjective being put forth as an objective truth.
Except that's not a breakdown of the conversation when you take things out of context it's easy to infer things that might not be there. It's more like this....
"People sure do complain about chipotle a lot but they don't complain about other restaurants, the only rational explanation is that it's full on stage 2 on display. (whatever the feth that means) They just come across as jilted exes"
"Maybe it's because chipotle is the worst restaurant to come out in a while"
Can you see the difference? There was never the question asked "why don't you like chipotle?" The statement made was "There's a lot of complaints about chipotle and therefore the only rational explanation is there's something wrong with the people complaining".
Context matters.
Even in the (incorrect) context you are making up, you don't have to assume everything that is said but not prefaced with "IMO" is a statement of fact. It's the nature of how people speak and how they write to state opinions without qualifying them as such, you normally only take something to mean a statement of fact when people are *very* clear that's what they mean.
Anyway, this is all very pointless and off topic. Any wargame *can* be fun. There's some objective measures we can use to compare them and I think AoS falls flat in a lot of areas, but I'd never be so presumptuous to say someone is wrong for liking it or wrong for enjoying it.
Measuring from the model and not the base, could reach my models on a charge because his weapons where extended. Could not see my troops but could see their spears so he shot and killed my models. Meeting in the middle and just rolling 3's and 4 got pretty boring quick. Summoning more and more skeletons got old pretty quick also and I had to slug through more and more models. We didn't play a mission so I'm sure that would have changed the pile in the middle. It just not a game that I could truly enjoy, I gave it a shot. Like I said I was not a fan of 8th edition with all its problems, balance being the major factor for me, cannon being laser guided, ect. Going to give KoW a try and see if I like that, if not my Skaven are on the chopping block of being sold.
Chute82 wrote: Measuring from the model and not the base, could reach my models on a charge because his weapons where extended.
No point on the model may move more than the model's move characteristic. So if he was six inches away and moved six inches, he was in range the entire time.
It also means that he can't rotate the model during movement, gaining more distance. I believe the intention is total movement, so you can rotate the model all you want, as long as at the end of the movement, no single point has ended up further than the model's move value. So people who rotate their lizardmen around to move their tails forward can't do that unless the end of the tail is less than the move value away from where the end of the tail started.
Could not see my troops but could see their spears so he shot and killed my models.
Were their troops between you or terrain? There's true line of sight in this game, and units can see through themselves, so there's a lot of places where line of sight exists in AoS that it wouldn't in others (I can see Horace between Wolfman's legs, just below the nards). If there was a wall between you, at the very least, you should get cover - scenery rules for walls say that anyone within 3" of a wall gains cover against anyone on the other side of the wall.
As for weapons being considered part of the model and being attacked, you either need to factor that into your strategy, or decide with your opponent that weapons don't count in line of sight. Warmachine Prime had rules like that until they went with volumes in MK2.
Meeting in the middle and just rolling 3's and 4 got pretty boring quick.
Terrain. You must use terrain. If you aren't using the kits with special rules, use the random effects table so that it makes the table more interesting to maneuver around on. They block LOS, create bottlenecks, define advantageous zones - they contribute greatly to the tactical aspects of the game and go a long way to preventing the monster mash in the middle.
Summoning more and more skeletons got old pretty quick also and I had to slug through more and more models.
We're having a discussion on that in the other thread, but my reading of the rules is that you can not summon the same models again. Slain models are removed from play. So to keep summoning skeletons, he would need enough models to summon in the first place.
MWHistorian wrote: But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.
"AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice."
"Its a game for people that don't want to think."
"AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up."
"I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play."
"It's like the Grateful Dead of Wargames. You need to be chemically inhibited to enjoy it."
Please, do continue to explain how you're not commenting on those people that like AoS.
But kudos on doing it indirectly.
Way to have ZERO reading comprehension. And way to take sections of quotes out of context in order to distort their meaning. That's actually really dishonest of you.
When I compared it to Saints Row, I said I liked SR for the same reason, I could just shut my brain off. That wasn't an insult.
Also, I said that sometimes just throwing dice can be a good thing and I do it myself on occasion.
Also also, many AOS supporters said they liked AOS because they didn't have to think too much. For example, many have said that not agonizing about army lists and just throw down whatever you want is what draws them to AOS. Many have said that they like not having to worry about tons of rules and just have fun with friends.
Okay, the Greateful Dead quote was a bit meaner than I intended. But I was making fun of the "Beer and Pretzals" thing, as in getting drunk. It was a jab and not a real insult. Once again, it's taken out of context of the conversation around it.
Perhaps you should just take one on the chin and realize that people are taking offense from yours and many others comments, and Keep your comments focused solely on the game without inferring negative traits about those who play it. If comparing AoS to "turning your brain off" isn't an insult against those who enjoy it, then I don't know what is... "Just throwing dice" may be a good thing for you "on occasion", but according to those who have played it extensively, it DOES have a ton of depth, tactics and thinking involved. So unless you also have played it extensively, you can't talk about its depth with any authority.
Yet you say you do not try to pass your opinion off as 'correct'?You ensure that the negatives must be highlighted again and again, as you have claimed that it is not possible to defend the game without resorting to personal opinion. Do you not see the irony there?
You also noticeably do not do the same for other systems.
So that's either cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy.
I don't, I pass it off as my opinion, if people don't agree I don't correct them and say "no, you can't like this game, that is wrong" etc. I Clearly talk as if it's my opinion. Unless you think I should put "in my humble opinion" on the end of everything just in case people think im not talking my opinion or something... Also most people who defend this game do resort to personal attacks, and frequently. Put it all together, opinion? Probably, but it certainly happens a lot...
I don't do it for other systems... hmmmm I wonder why? Maybe it's because no other system is as bad as this one (in my opinion, hope that helps, buddy). Who would have thought eh? Unless you are sayng there is another AOS out in the wild somewhere on this forum?
I don't see what is so hard to understand dude, If I hate a movie, im not a hypocrite for NOT hating on all movies, or other movies. I don't even get what you are trying to say? "They hate this game and are vocal about it, but only this game, there is something wrong with them, anger?" Because obviously that's the only reason someone will post how bad a certain game is and not other games...
Chute82 wrote: I played RAW and the game is horrible in my opinion.
Then you are the one at fault- not for finding it horrible mind, but for playing raw. I am not one to defend gw, or aos, but let's be honest and practical here for a second.gw write terrible rules. If you want to get anything positive out of them you need to negotiate and discuss your games prior to putting your stuff on the table. You can't 'go in blind' with gw games - the level of imbalance is simply too big. It's the same with the rules. Yes, they're bad but players are just as bad for being utterly unbending and inflexible when it comes to it (ie seeing raw as 'the only way')I will abide, and recommend balanced rules set like warmachine and infinity to be played raw, but not 40k and other be games - it's a recipe for disaster.
Chute82 wrote: To make the game playable you need to change it a bunch from the original way the game is meant to be played which makes it a bad game in my opinion. A good game should be able to be played as RAW and not need to be house ruled to be playable. It's not the players job to fix the rules it's the game companies job to release good rules.
How is the game 'meant' to be played? Let's be clear. Again, I am not defending gw or aos, but their attitude is, and always has been one of 'modify the game to suit yourselves' at the end of the day. Considering this, raw is a bit of a red herring. For right or for wrong, gw are abdicating their role in the game and leaving it entirely in the hands of the players. It's not about the players fixing the rules, it's about the players modifying the rules to suit themselves and their groups (no different to 'we don't play flyers and super heavies' for example). I don't necessarily agree with it in all circumstances, but I can see a lot of merit in the approach, given the right circumstances. some people like to have that flexibility in how they build their games and approach the rules. Some players like to be in the 'driving seat' when it comes to coming up with cool scenarios and feel this lets them unleash their creativity in both scenario creation, army building and in designing interesting battles, and honestly, I don't disagree. 'Organised play' can get a bit stifling and boring. We play this way (ie pointless, unique scenarios, scenario-tailored armies etc(ourselves. Admittedly, with flames of war and often, with infinity. But it is a lot of fun, both in terms of playing the game, and creating the game.
considering this, you just need a basic framework of rules. Let the players twist the rest to suit themselves. And yes chute, I think aos is a bad game too. Not for the reasons you state though, I think it's a bad game because the rules are simplistic, boring and uninteresting. Not because I have to change it (because I'd be doing that anyway, even if the rules were watertight). I think it's a bad game because it destroys the 'common space' of 'organised play'. While I can pre negotiate and organise with my like minded mates, pick up games with strangers and tournaments are a lot harder to work with, especially with tome constraints. I think it is a bad game because It relies so heavily on your opponent enabling and acqueiescing to what you want to play, and that will vary with every single person - rather than balance by good game design, it's balance by social accord, self restraint, self policing, compromise, negotiation, and ultimately, balance by social exclusion and ridicule (ie bullying) when what you want to play is not seen as being in line with your opponents or your groups expectation of the game, regardless of your 'rights and wishes' to play x,y and z.
Chute82 wrote: AoS is just another example of GW not knowing what the market wants.
Is it? I dunno chute, I think it's a case of gw not catering to the hard core gamers. The rights and wrongs of this approach are up for debate (my thoughts lean towards gw cutting their nose off to spite their face) but there are a lot more gamers out there than them. I like an intricate set of rules with a lot of moving parts and lots of things going on. Warmachine and infinity sre my bread and butter. Others look on this approach with horror and see this 'burden of knowledge' and 'things to keep track of' as a massive hurdle and a huge barrier. Like it or not, there are a lot of gamers out there who want a simple, straight forward set of rules without that massive burden of knowledge that seems to require, or at the very least, encourage house ruling and player control. Whether that population is large enough to sustain aos is again, up for debate. It's split the old wfb community(all three of them) in half. It's raised the hackles of a lot of the hardcore players. But for all that, it seems to have attracted a lot of casual players- some, or many with no previous interest in wargames, and some older players have come out of the woodwork too. Will it be the next big thing? I doubt it, but I also doubt it will be a flash in the pan. I think it can attract enough interest to pay for itself, at least in the short term. Let's face it, it can't do worse than wfb. I think it has value, if only as a gateway game. And while I personally think it's a sad indictment of the player base - it opened a lot of people up to the idea of 'making the game theirs' and fosters a sense(ie a requirement) of player creativity and player led design that is often overshadowed in other games where the developer tells you how to play - the sad thing is, players could always do their own thing, but only do it now because gw gave them permission (and apparently, it's new and wonderful, even though it's always been there) that seemingly people are embracing it. Sigh.
MWHistorian wrote: But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.
"AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice."
"Its a game for people that don't want to think."
"AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up."
"I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play."
"It's like the Grateful Dead of Wargames. You need to be chemically inhibited to enjoy it."
Please, do continue to explain how you're not commenting on those people that like AoS.
But kudos on doing it indirectly.
Way to have ZERO reading comprehension. And way to take sections of quotes out of context in order to distort their meaning. That's actually really dishonest of you.
When I compared it to Saints Row, I said I liked SR for the same reason, I could just shut my brain off. That wasn't an insult.
Also, I said that sometimes just throwing dice can be a good thing and I do it myself on occasion.
Also also, many AOS supporters said they liked AOS because they didn't have to think too much. For example, many have said that not agonizing about army lists and just throw down whatever you want is what draws them to AOS. Many have said that they like not having to worry about tons of rules and just have fun with friends.
Okay, the Greateful Dead quote was a bit meaner than I intended. But I was making fun of the "Beer and Pretzals" thing, as in getting drunk. It was a jab and not a real insult. Once again, it's taken out of context of the conversation around it.
Perhaps you should just take one on the chin and realize that people are taking offense from yours and many others comments, and Keep your comments focused solely on the game without inferring negative traits about those who play it. If comparing AoS to "turning your brain off" isn't an insult against those who enjoy it, then I don't know what is... "Just throwing dice" may be a good thing for you "on occasion", but according to those who have played it extensively, it DOES have a ton of depth, tactics and thinking involved. So unless you also have played it extensively, you can't talk about its depth with any authority.
Sorry. Im not going to worry about how I say things based off how someone might take offence at something that meant no offence. Im sorry that you're delicate and take offence at criticism of a game you like.
Games Workshop released a game that is practically a nongame, devoid of the most basic and practical aspects of a wargame. And people are swallowing this garbage up?
You go to an event where people have to brainstorm a bunch of stuff up just to make it functional... and this is touted as a fantastic example of how this new "game" works.
I'll stick with 8th, or the other wargames I've discovered post-Sigmar. When I consume based on brand preference, that's because I like the quality of the brand, not because I'm a mindless slave to the brand. I buy a particular brand of cake mix because it tastes better. If say, that brand released a new box of mix filled with dog feces I imagine I'd move to a different one. I'm no longer loyal to the 'Games Workshop' brand because of what they've done to their IP, and I'd encourage others to leave it as well.
So now that this conversation is no longer about people saying offensive things, then saying they weren't offensive, then saying they really don't care if their words are offensive to people ...
I'm not a fan of Age of Sigmar, the Rules. I think the fluff is more engaging as a setting than the world of Warhammer Fantasy was (especially from a "relative to how long they've had to develop it" perspective). That's, of course, a pair of opinions.
One thing Age of Sigmar is, however, is basically a GM'ed gaming / Narrative gamer's wet dream. Warhammer Fantasy, just like Warhammer 40,000, developed as a "tournament game" even among most self-branded "casual" players, in that most games were 1v1 affairs played on a level field by the book. MOST games weren't just leveraging the basic game mechanics and creating complex stories and set-piece battles with plenty of rules-changes and imbalances tuned to whatever was going on at the time.
These types of games are NOT casual. I am a casual and fairly competitive tabletop wargamer .... I do really, really well in tournaments, but I prefer among all things to just sit down with good company, have a beer, and play a simple, straightforward game. I get plenty of set-piece and narrative in my imagination while I play and from the simple good look of painted armies battling over nice terrain.
That said, I've been introduced to true GM'ed/narrative gaming this year by a local group of friends who leverage the basic Bolt Action rules to do exhaustive multi-player, GM'ed World War 2 battles, with lots of rules changes and subterfuge and hidden secrets and tricks, and - perhaps most importantly for them - missions and objectives and tasks that are not "do this for X points," but are more tuned toward recreating taskings given to company and platoon level commanders from the set-piece battles. They paint beautiful miniatures and craft gorgeous crazy-scenic boards on which to play.
These types of gamers are actually VERY common in Tabletop Wargaming, but aren't really encountered all that often by the traditional Fantasy/Sci-FI gaming cross-section. They're the guys who flock in their thousands to places like Historicon, where nearly all the gaming is more like the narrative type just described.
For this type of gaming, all you really need are basic mechanics for how models and units interact with each other on the battlefield. Point levels, army construction rules, etc., are unnecessary, b/c the GMs or event organizers are going to set those to best support whatever they're going for, whether or not "standard" rules for them exist in the game's rulebook.
Age of Sigmar is now this type of game. It's pretty much perfectly aligned to this type of gaming. This is, not coincidentally, the type of gaming that Jervis Johnson is a really big fan of, and gamers tend to - for whatever reason - become more into as they get older. There's a reason the historical and GM'ed gaming crowd is, generally, quite a bit older than the competitive / 1v1-by-the-book gaming crowd. It shouldn't be surprising that he's leveraged flagging Fantasy sales to recreate the game as something more to his tastes, nor really criticized, other than by those who understandably are upset the game they played for 30 years is no longer supported by the parent company.
What Age of Sigmar is, as a result of all this, is absolutely PERFECT for any kind of organized play. This could be tournaments, this could be GM'ed games, this could be big narratives or linked battles, big multi-player events, whatever. Why? Because there aren't enough rules to prevent people tailoring and creating rules to make those events perfect for their intention. Additionally, unlike 40K (as an example), instead of having a heavily flawed and imbalanced ruleset with regard to army balance and construction, you simply don't have one ... meaning event and game organizers can fine-tune army construction to suit their idea of what a fun Age of Sigmar game or event is.
It should, therefore, not be even a little bit surprising that people would go and have fun at one of these events ... after all, the event organizer is effectively the TRUE game designer, and so all rules questions and other things are always going to be answered in the spirit of the game, which is fabulous. It's more work for the organizer, but so what if they want to put in the time to do it?
I'm quite glad a couple of passionate guys stood up and put together some cool Age of Sigmar stuff in a hurry for NOVA next week, and doubly glad some folks are coming out to try it out. I'm sure they'll have a good time. I'm also sure plenty of deep thought went into crafting the rules for the events, and will go into playing through the games.
Mymearan wrote: Perhaps you should just take one on the chin and realize that people are taking offense from yours and many others comments, and Keep your comments focused solely on the game without inferring negative traits about those who play it. If comparing AoS to "turning your brain off" isn't an insult against those who enjoy it, then I don't know what is...
In the context of a *game* it's not an insult. I can see how it can be confusing, as saying "turning off your brain" is an insult in *most* contexts, but in the context of a game, it's only an insult if you choose to take it as such.
In most contexts outside of gaming, it is an insult because it usually means someone is not thinking when they should be thinking.
In the context of a game, however, turning off your brain can be the desired outcome. I have a giant stack of video games installed on my computer. Some are deep and complex, some are shallow games where I can just turn off my brain and play them. One's not better than the other, it doesn't make you a better/worse player for wanting to play one over the other, and it doesn't make you more or less intelligent playing one over the other.
Quite often it's the people in jobs that require them to think a lot and have to make high stress decisions who get attracted to the games that let you turn off your brain to an extent.
So unless you also have played it extensively, you can't talk about its depth with any authority.
This is a never ending argument though. If someone who has played 5000 games is still playing it then obviously they think it has sufficient depth. On the other hand someone else plays 5 games and gets bored because the game lacks depth. Depth can be very nuanced if someone is interested enough to find the nuance, but it doesn't make the person who quit after 5 games objectively wrong if they think it lacks depth.
In general, the "you have to play it extensively to have authority" isn't true anyway. Many of the people discussing the topic have been playing wargames for decades and have enough experience to figure out quite a bit from reading the rules and playing a couple of intro games without having to endure 100's of battles they aren't enjoying to form an authoritative opinion.
RoperPG wrote: You can dress it up however you like, but you come across as jilted exes.
And it's silly comments like these that keep people coming back to argue about it.
Seriously, if you want to stop people being negative about AoS, stop baiting people who don't like it with thinly veiled insults.
Wasn't an insult, it was an objective statement
Erm lol? that was in no way an objective statement, just from a debate stance nobody would try to claim that such an opinion on other people from an individual where it actually says "You come across as" as been an objective statement. Its an opinion literally by definition.
Objective statement > this gun fires bullets
Opinion statement > you come across as an ass.
plenty of people who dislike AoS have been offering reasoning why they don't like it and its never "The players are disgusting I hate them I just want to ruin the game because im an ass" they bring up points about the points system, balancing, tournament play, rules sets and still haven't insulted players yet. Go ahead and look through this thread I bet your going to find a lot more name calling (including from yourself) from pro AoS than the people who don't like it. In fact the players who don't like it are just commenting to be left alone for a change and stop with the name calling. In which the response has been name calling and calling them immature jilted exes for offering their opinion. Its on the same lines as telling people who didn't like inception "you're just not smart enough to get it" instead of listening to why they dislike it you jump to calling them names and belittling. Which shows immaturity.
It shows the two sides ways of arguing when one side is basically just asking for threads of AoS to stop name calling and insulting anti AoS players and just stick to the subject and the response instead of been "yeah that sounds fair nobody likes to be called names for no reason" its getting aggressive and name calling those people why? because thread starters and commenters want to name call and carry on the hate. When players who dislike AoS is telling you "listen look at the none insulting threads there's no arguments so please just make threads without having to name call other players" and your response is to call them names and belittle, you know its you thats carrying on this hate parade not them.
and because yo might cry objective heres an objective example, heres a thread that doesn't attempt it insult none AoS players and lets see how much conflict is displaye. I mean judging by your comments anti AoS players are jilted exes who go around looking for trouble and will derail any AoS thread out of spite oh wait:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660815.page
^ so wheres all the anti AoS players raiding to call the game terrible? or in any of the other threads that don't insult people for their opinions in fact ive seen this so much since launch Ive brought up its time to leave people alone before here, which seemed to be agreed upon
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/655662.page
and for added examples look who tries to start the argument off in a thread just about saying goodbye to fantasy with comments like:
"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."
- From a nice happy AoS supporter on a thread about stopping hating on none AoS players saying that because he personally doesn't like tournament play to win (not like tournaments are there for that reason or anything) players hes happy AoS has driven that scum away
If people can't agree that insulting players directly for not liking a system isn't nice and should stop well thats on you. Next time someone says they don't like the rules think twice before you call them names personally or call them a TFG or maybe even....a jilted Ex.
When I compared it to Saints Row, I said I liked SR for the same reason, I could just shut my brain off. That wasn't an insult.
Also, I said that sometimes just throwing dice can be a good thing and I do it myself on occasion.
Also also, many AOS supporters said they liked AOS because they didn't have to think too much. For example, many have said that not agonizing about army lists and just throw down whatever you want is what draws them to AOS. Many have said that they like not having to worry about tons of rules and just have fun with friends.
I like AoS... It's cool that you don't.
However, you do raise a couple good points here... (I skipped to the last page, and saw this little bit).. I also like Saints Row. To me, the SR games allow players to put as much, or as little thought into the game as they want.
One of the things that I absolutely HATED about the previous fantasy game, was the perception (real or imagined) that you won/lost the game, largely before it began. This happened both in the list building stage, as well as the deployment stage, because I've seen/heard too many people moaning about how they deployed one unit wrong and it cost the whole game.
And you're right about not agonizing over unit lists, even though we're already beginning to figure out the what works/doesn't work thing, and can begin adjusting armies accordingly.... However, I will say that that option is still there, particularly if you are, like me, playing in a store escalation campaign and are trying to see what others' are doing and so trying to plan your army accordingly. And, at least at the store I frequent, there is a definite increase in the "fun" factor, people are actually smiling and having fun even when losing.
The passive-aggressiveness is strong in this thread. Rage of Skubmar is a low quality rulesett dumped out by GW as a final admittance that they can't write rules worth a damn so they put the onus on the players to balance it. If you can make a ton of house rules and have fun with the game good on you. That doesn't make it a quality ruleset. Just as much fun if not much more could be had if Age of Sigmar was a tightly written, well balanced ruleset.
jonolikespie wrote: Personally I am of the opinion that 'ignore bases and just place a model on top of another model's base' should be counted as an OBJECTIVE flaw. That is a rule that is going to be directly responsible for damaging people's models (if there were anyone out there who hasn't houseruled it).
The only thing it says about bases is to not include them when measuring distances. The idea that you can climb upon your opponent's base came from the idea that they don't count as part of the model, so they must be valid terrain. This isn't explicitly stated in the rules, so AoS doesn't necessarily allow or promote the idea - it just doesn't disallow it.
This rule -- measuring from the model not the base -- is necessary to allow WHFB legacy armies on 20mm square bases to compete fairly with the new AoS figures on 32mm round bases, otherwise combined with the weapon range rules it would allow legacy models to get a lot more attacks into range during the H2H phase.
Of course it introduces other complications, such as climbing on bases, and the use of models with long spears. These are the kind of problems and compromises you have to expect in a simple, free rulebook that relies on the players to sort out the practical issues that arise.
I have to say, the more I read about AoS, the more I'm dying to start an army. It seems so much fun. Too bad I have two 40k armies, a Necromunda gang, Deadzone guys and soooooo little time to hobby. I really want that starter box though, AND the IoB set to get some Skaven going...
Age of Sigmar is now this type of game. It's pretty much perfectly aligned to this type of gaming. This is, not coincidentally, the type of gaming that Jervis Johnson is a really big fan of, and gamers tend to - for whatever reason - become more into as they get older. There's a reason the historical and GM'ed gaming crowd is, generally, quite a bit older than the competitive / 1v1-by-the-book gaming crowd. It shouldn't be surprising that he's leveraged flagging Fantasy sales to recreate the game as something more to his tastes, nor really criticized, other than by those who understandably are upset the game they played for 30 years is no longer supported by the parent company.
But such changes seem strange then. If the CEO says that the focus group for GW games are young male adults, then making a game that mechanics are ment to work better for older or old players seems counter productiv.
MWHistorian wrote: But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.
"AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice."
"Its a game for people that don't want to think."
"AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up."
"I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play."
"It's like the Grateful Dead of Wargames. You need to be chemically inhibited to enjoy it."
Please, do continue to explain how you're not commenting on those people that like AoS.
But kudos on doing it indirectly.
Way to have ZERO reading comprehension. And way to take sections of quotes out of context in order to distort their meaning. That's actually really dishonest of you.
When I compared it to Saints Row, I said I liked SR for the same reason, I could just shut my brain off. That wasn't an insult.
Also, I said that sometimes just throwing dice can be a good thing and I do it myself on occasion.
Also also, many AOS supporters said they liked AOS because they didn't have to think too much. For example, many have said that not agonizing about army lists and just throw down whatever you want is what draws them to AOS. Many have said that they like not having to worry about tons of rules and just have fun with friends.
Okay, the Greateful Dead quote was a bit meaner than I intended. But I was making fun of the "Beer and Pretzals" thing, as in getting drunk. It was a jab and not a real insult. Once again, it's taken out of context of the conversation around it.
Perhaps you should just take one on the chin and realize that people are taking offense from yours and many others comments, and Keep your comments focused solely on the game without inferring negative traits about those who play it. If comparing AoS to "turning your brain off" isn't an insult against those who enjoy it, then I don't know what is... "Just throwing dice" may be a good thing for you "on occasion", but according to those who have played it extensively, it DOES have a ton of depth, tactics and thinking involved. So unless you also have played it extensively, you can't talk about its depth with any authority.
They are wrong. It has just enough tactics and depth to still he considered a game but the same time it's the most shallow and least tactical major title on the market.
It's just like people claiming they have balanced games thanks to counting wounds. They are wrong and their opinion irrelevant no matter how many times it's repeated or how many games they played. For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period. The game is bad as in bad, tragic in fact and it's only the fix it mindset of players that saves it.
Re who insults who, I bash the game senseless but have yet to insult a GW designer or a player but was ofc multiple times attacked as a person. Saying the game is dumb, slowed, designed for store mums and pointless is not an insult o people playing it. I play dumb pc games, watch dumb shows and tell dumb jokes. I don't pretend they're not dumb and don't get insulted when someone tells me "you watch a dumb show". It's simple really and going for insults like pro aos brigade does is imo just a sign of logical arguments shortage. Can't blame you guys though it's quite a task you have here.
I played a big game of Age of Sigmar with a few friends. It was good (Storm-casts, Elves and Empire vs evil (Dark Elves, Chaos and Goblins). The objective for the good guys was to stop the bad guys from reaching the inner section of the fortress. (Unfortunately) the good guys won although I reckon if we carried on for a couple more turns, the inner section would have been taken and it would of been a victory for the evil guys. . It had to be one of the most enjoyable wargaming experiences that I have had in a long time.
Age of Sigmar is now this type of game. It's pretty much perfectly aligned to this type of gaming. This is, not coincidentally, the type of gaming that Jervis Johnson is a really big fan of, and gamers tend to - for whatever reason - become more into as they get older. There's a reason the historical and GM'ed gaming crowd is, generally, quite a bit older than the competitive / 1v1-by-the-book gaming crowd. It shouldn't be surprising that he's leveraged flagging Fantasy sales to recreate the game as something more to his tastes, nor really criticized, other than by those who understandably are upset the game they played for 30 years is no longer supported by the parent company.
But such changes seem strange then. If the CEO says that the focus group for GW games are young male adults, then making a game that mechanics are ment to work better for older or old players seems counter productiv.
The CEO actually said they don't do focus groups, or any kind of market research at all. And while the historical crowd might appear to be older, we have no idea how big it is compared to the competitive scenes.
WargamingWarrior wrote: I played a big game of Age of Sigmar with a few friends. It was good (Storm-casts, Elves and Empire vs evil (Dark Elves, Chaos and Goblins). The objective for the good guys was to stop the bad guys from reaching the inner section of the fortress. (Unfortunately) the good guys won although I reckon if we carried on for a couple more turns, the inner section would have been taken and it would of been a victory for the evil guys. . It had to be one of the most enjoyable wargaming experiences that I have had in a long time.
That is a great set up, and sounds like an awesome game
The CEO actually said they don't do focus groups, or any kind of market research at all. And while the historical crowd might appear to be older, we have no idea how big it is compared to the competitive scenes.
Just to chip in here, he didn't say it to be arrogant - he said it because that kind of market research is of extremely limited use in the hobby games market.
Age of Sigmar is now this type of game. It's pretty much perfectly aligned to this type of gaming. This is, not coincidentally, the type of gaming that Jervis Johnson is a really big fan of, and gamers tend to - for whatever reason - become more into as they get older. There's a reason the historical and GM'ed gaming crowd is, generally, quite a bit older than the competitive / 1v1-by-the-book gaming crowd. It shouldn't be surprising that he's leveraged flagging Fantasy sales to recreate the game as something more to his tastes, nor really criticized, other than by those who understandably are upset the game they played for 30 years is no longer supported by the parent company.
But such changes seem strange then. If the CEO says that the focus group for GW games are young male adults, then making a game that mechanics are ment to work better for older or old players seems counter productiv.
The CEO actually said they don't do focus groups, or any kind of market research at all. And while the historical crowd might appear to be older, we have no idea how big it is compared to the competitive scenes.
In the thing they put out a few months ago it said they focus on young teen males. I don't know how big historical gaming is in the world, but I highly doubt is anywhere near normal table top systems. The size of space needed to play is huge, not to mention the cost of getting an actual models needed.
Age of Sigmar is now this type of game. It's pretty much perfectly aligned to this type of gaming. This is, not coincidentally, the type of gaming that Jervis Johnson is a really big fan of, and gamers tend to - for whatever reason - become more into as they get older. There's a reason the historical and GM'ed gaming crowd is, generally, quite a bit older than the competitive / 1v1-by-the-book gaming crowd. It shouldn't be surprising that he's leveraged flagging Fantasy sales to recreate the game as something more to his tastes, nor really criticized, other than by those who understandably are upset the game they played for 30 years is no longer supported by the parent company.
But such changes seem strange then. If the CEO says that the focus group for GW games are young male adults, then making a game that mechanics are ment to work better for older or old players seems counter productiv.
The CEO actually said they don't do focus groups, or any kind of market research at all. And while the historical crowd might appear to be older, we have no idea how big it is compared to the competitive scenes.
In the thing they put out a few months ago it said they focus on young teen males. I don't know how big historical gaming is in the world, but I highly doubt is anywhere near normal table top systems. The size of space needed to play is huge, not to mention the cost of getting an actual models needed.
The point is, there's not actually any real market research done, and they're on record saying they don't listen to their customers or find that to be of any value.
Literally.
Which, even if you don't, saying that on a public report is just about as functionally oblivious and lacking in introspection as it gets, but whatever.
Point is, their game designers are aging gamers who fell in love with GM'ed games before they invented these. It shouldn't be surprising.
The point is, there's not actually any real market research done, and they're on record saying they don't listen to their customers or find that to be of any value.
I don't think this is as big a point as you think it is. Niche markets tend to be too small and specialized to be able to note trends. It's like doing statistical analysis on a group of three things. There's just not enough data points to be able to draw conclusions.
As for listening to its customers, they don't tend to speak with one voice. In this forum, I've seen people say that AoS is the dumbest, worst game ever made, and I've seen people who like it very much. I've seen people upset that WFB ended, people who like the new lore better, and people who think WFB should've ended even earlier. I've seen people who would murder a man just for daring to suggest that points weren't "all that and a can of beans", and I've seen people thrilled at the opportunities that no points provides. I've seen people say that AoS should be more friendly to competitive players, and people say, "no, feth those competitive guys. They're jerks." I've never seen GW do anything that wasn't both praised and hated simultaneously, often loudly and well past the point of a healthy mind.
So who do they listen to? Do you want them to listen to all their customers, or just you? Or maybe they can put their big boy pants on and make the games they want to make, and if you like them, you can choose to play them.
Speaking of putting on their big boy pants, maybe you could find constructive ways to structure your arguments, rather than resorting to personal attacks on anyone with a different perspective? --Janthkin
I don't know how big historical gaming is in the world, but I highly doubt is anywhere near normal table top systems. The size of space needed to play is huge, not to mention the cost of getting an actual models needed.
You'd be surprised. Historical gaming is quite big, and I'd almost think it's probably larger than sci fi and fantasy gaming. It's just not as exposed as the gws and flgs's which we all walk past. A lot of the historical players tend to play at home too and don't go online. .
In terms of costs again, it's quite reasonable. The Perries, warlord and other companies make very affordable plastic kits with high model counts per box so it's not hard to amass armies of several hundred figures that would have an exorbitant price tag if it was from gw. My mate got a warlord Roman starter with about 120 models for about fifty pounds. Quality is good too. As for space, that's not an issue for a lot of people either.
The point is, there's not actually any real market research done, and they're on record saying they don't listen to their customers or find that to be of any value.
I don't think this is as big a point as you think it is. Niche markets tend to be too small and specialized to be able to note trends. It's like doing statistical analysis on a group of three things. There's just not enough data points to be able to draw conclusions.
As for listening to its customers, they don't tend to speak with one voice. In this forum, I've seen people say that AoS is the dumbest, worst game ever made, and I've seen people who like it very much. I've seen people upset that WFB ended, people who like the new lore better, and people who think WFB should've ended even earlier. I've seen people who would murder a man just for daring to suggest that points weren't "all that and a can of beans", and I've seen people thrilled at the opportunities that no points provides. I've seen people say that AoS should be more friendly to competitive players, and people say, "no, feth those competitive guys. They're jerks." I've never seen GW do anything that wasn't both praised and hated simultaneously, often loudly and well past the point of a healthy mind.
So who do they listen to? Do you want them to listen to all their customers, or just you? Or maybe they can put their big boy pants on and make the games they want to make, and if you like them, you can choose to play them.
Which, even if you don't, saying that on a public report is just about as functionally oblivious and lacking in introspection as it gets, but whatever.
They were saying that to their investors, not to their customers. Presumably, their investors would've found it good news that GW doesn't let a bunch of whiny manchildren decide the direction of their business.
I just... people need to get over themselves. The customer is not always right and you are not entitled to anything. If GW makes decisions that you don't agree with... tough titties. Go feth off somewhere else. I hear Mantic is currently looking for a bunch of whiny little bitches to call customer. GW makes a bunch of decisions, both good and bad, both sane and insane, and all you can do is decide whether you can accept those decisions, and if you can not, find another hobby that makes you happy. I know this the internet and a sense of entitlement is kinda just how it works, but holy crap...
I'm a big fan of GW games, run one of the largest GW set of gaming events on the planet, and will continue to. Doesn't mean it makes any sense to put something "For investors" in a document that "your other customers" can read that is superficially disparaging of the value of their input.
It's really not an entitlement thing. If you're also a fan of their products, I'm surprised you wouldn't weigh in when you consider a decision a poor one. If you'll read my prior post, I'm largely supportive of Age of Sigmar ... I think people who play Fantasy over the last 20 years or so are primarily competitive / 1v1 type players, and that's simply not the cross-section of gamers it is built for.
"I know this is the internet and getting pissed unreasonably at everyone without reading everything they've written is just how it works, but holy crap ..."
Edit: I don't have an issue w/ them not doing market research. I have an issue w/ them saying they don't care to or find it valuable on a public report. The former might be totally reasonable business sense. The latter is stupid, b/c *putting it on the public record* has no positive value (you can tell your shareholders without it going on the record, if saying that one line to your shareholders is actually important to say in the first place).
MWHistorian wrote: But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.
"AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice."
"Its a game for people that don't want to think."
"AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up."
"I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play."
"It's like the Grateful Dead of Wargames. You need to be chemically inhibited to enjoy it."
Please, do continue to explain how you're not commenting on those people that like AoS.
But kudos on doing it indirectly.
Way to have ZERO reading comprehension. And way to take sections of quotes out of context in order to distort their meaning. That's actually really dishonest of you.
When I compared it to Saints Row, I said I liked SR for the same reason, I could just shut my brain off. That wasn't an insult.
Also, I said that sometimes just throwing dice can be a good thing and I do it myself on occasion.
Also also, many AOS supporters said they liked AOS because they didn't have to think too much. For example, many have said that not agonizing about army lists and just throw down whatever you want is what draws them to AOS. Many have said that they like not having to worry about tons of rules and just have fun with friends.
Okay, the Greateful Dead quote was a bit meaner than I intended. But I was making fun of the "Beer and Pretzals" thing, as in getting drunk. It was a jab and not a real insult. Once again, it's taken out of context of the conversation around it.
Perhaps you should just take one on the chin and realize that people are taking offense from yours and many others comments, and Keep your comments focused solely on the game without inferring negative traits about those who play it. If comparing AoS to "turning your brain off" isn't an insult against those who enjoy it, then I don't know what is... "Just throwing dice" may be a good thing for you "on occasion", but according to those who have played it extensively, it DOES have a ton of depth, tactics and thinking involved. So unless you also have played it extensively, you can't talk about its depth with any authority.
They are wrong. It has just enough tactics and depth to still he considered a game but the same time it's the most shallow and least tactical major title on the market.
It's just like people claiming they have balanced games thanks to counting wounds. They are wrong and their opinion irrelevant no matter how many times it's repeated or how many games they played. For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period. The game is bad as in bad, tragic in fact and it's only the fix it mindset of players that saves it.
Re who insults who, I bash the game senseless but have yet to insult a GW designer or a player but was ofc multiple times attacked as a person. Saying the game is dumb, slowed, designed for store mums and pointless is not an insult o people playing it. I play dumb pc games, watch dumb shows and tell dumb jokes. I don't pretend they're not dumb and don't get insulted when someone tells me "you watch a dumb show". It's simple really and going for insults like pro aos brigade does is imo just a sign of logical arguments shortage. Can't blame you guys though it's quite a task you have here.
They are not wrong. The game has serious tactical depth, your denial of which isn't factual, or objective. Name ONE tactic that exists in ANY tabletop wargame that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar. No one has been able to as of yet. They have said that the benefit doesn't matter, or it is shallow, or even that it isn't worth trying. Those are opinions, and they are used solely to deny the FACT that they are wrong about the actual tactics and depth allowed within a simple core ruleset.
A general reminder: if you are resorting to personal attacks against another poster, or against an entire category of people, then a) you are violating Dakka's Rule #1; and b) the rest of your arguments are going to be devalued by association.
Remember that forum arguments aren't usually going to convince the guy who is arguing with you. The best you can hope for is to convince the silent readers, who haven't made up their minds yet.
WargamingWarrior wrote: I played a big game of Age of Sigmar with a few friends. It was good (Storm-casts, Elves and Empire vs evil (Dark Elves, Chaos and Goblins). The objective for the good guys was to stop the bad guys from reaching the inner section of the fortress. (Unfortunately) the good guys won although I reckon if we carried on for a couple more turns, the inner section would have been taken and it would of been a victory for the evil guys. . It had to be one of the most enjoyable wargaming experiences that I have had in a long time.
That is a great set up, and sounds like an awesome game
What is the big green guy with the axe?
It's an alternative model that we were running as a glottkin if I remember correctly. I cannot remember the manufacturer of the model though. The unfortunate thing was that he was blocking the ramp up to the gate, fighting Stormcast Eternals for a large portion of the game, preventing the rest of the evil forces from breaking down the doors and storming the fortress.
Is it? I dunno chute, I think it's a case of gw not catering to the hard core gamers. The rights and wrongs of this approach are up for debate (my thoughts lean towards gw cutting their nose off to spite their face) but there are a lot more gamers out there than them. I like an intricate set of rules with a lot of moving parts and lots of things going on. Warmachine and infinity sre my bread and butter. Others look on this approach with horror and see this 'burden of knowledge' and 'things to keep track of' as a massive hurdle and a huge barrier. Like it or not, there are a lot of gamers out there who want a simple, straight forward set of rules without that massive burden of knowledge that seems to require, or at the very least, encourage house ruling and player control. Whether that population is large enough to sustain aos is again, up for debate. It's split the old wfb community(all three of them) in half. It's raised the hackles of a lot of the hardcore players. But for all that, it seems to have attracted a lot of casual players- some, or many with no previous interest in wargames, and some older players have come out of the woodwork too. Will it be the next big thing? I doubt it, but I also doubt it will be a flash in the pan. I think it can attract enough interest to pay for itself, at least in the short term. Let's face it, it can't do worse than wfb. I think it has value, if only as a gateway game. And while I personally think it's a sad indictment of the player base - it opened a lot of people up to the idea of 'making the game theirs' and fosters a sense(ie a requirement) of player creativity and player led design that is often overshadowed in other games where the developer tells you how to play - the sad thing is, players could always do their own thing, but only do it now because gw gave them permission (and apparently, it's new and wonderful, even though it's always been there) that seemingly people are embracing it.
Thats an excellent post and one that captures my own personal view of AoS perfectly.
Back in 2nd ed 40k which wasnt hugely complicated but it did have a myriad of things to keep track of and micromange (especially after DM was released), I simply loved it. I was almost encylopedic about the rules and thought the intricate movements of the different parts as you put it was so amazingly engaging.
20 years on however, Im simply not bothered anymore and what AoS gives me personally is a simple, relatively clear ruleset that can be setup and played quite quickly still using armies that I was fond of from the whfb days (aesthetically, basic mechanics-wise etc).
I peronally never got that into WMH because of the more intricate nature and combos, whereas AoS satisfies what I look for these days.
I fully acknowledge those like me with 2nd or who like WHM etc likely have been alienated by AoS but that dosent negate the fact it has definitely found a userbase who enjoy the mechanics and ability to field whatever you like - as you state "making the game theirs".
I would also personally second the view that it has a lot more tactical depth and combinations than its given credit for. Whether GW intended that or whether the players themselves have given it that is irrelevant - its an outcome that for many cant be denied.
If I play snakes and ladders but houserule this and that does it make the basic concept any worse? if its still fun - then categorically no.
Judging it whether it lasts or not is simply crystal balling at this point - its 2 months old afterall but for those of us that wanted/needed or simply enjoy the relatively stripped down mechanics, its done well so far.
MWHistorian wrote: But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.
"AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice."
"Its a game for people that don't want to think."
"AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up."
"I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play."
"It's like the Grateful Dead of Wargames. You need to be chemically inhibited to enjoy it."
Please, do continue to explain how you're not commenting on those people that like AoS.
But kudos on doing it indirectly.
Way to have ZERO reading comprehension. And way to take sections of quotes out of context in order to distort their meaning. That's actually really dishonest of you.
When I compared it to Saints Row, I said I liked SR for the same reason, I could just shut my brain off. That wasn't an insult.
Also, I said that sometimes just throwing dice can be a good thing and I do it myself on occasion.
Also also, many AOS supporters said they liked AOS because they didn't have to think too much. For example, many have said that not agonizing about army lists and just throw down whatever you want is what draws them to AOS. Many have said that they like not having to worry about tons of rules and just have fun with friends.
Okay, the Greateful Dead quote was a bit meaner than I intended. But I was making fun of the "Beer and Pretzals" thing, as in getting drunk. It was a jab and not a real insult. Once again, it's taken out of context of the conversation around it.
Perhaps you should just take one on the chin and realize that people are taking offense from yours and many others comments, and Keep your comments focused solely on the game without inferring negative traits about those who play it. If comparing AoS to "turning your brain off" isn't an insult against those who enjoy it, then I don't know what is... "Just throwing dice" may be a good thing for you "on occasion", but according to those who have played it extensively, it DOES have a ton of depth, tactics and thinking involved. So unless you also have played it extensively, you can't talk about its depth with any authority.
They are wrong. It has just enough tactics and depth to still he considered a game but the same time it's the most shallow and least tactical major title on the market.
It's just like people claiming they have balanced games thanks to counting wounds. They are wrong and their opinion irrelevant no matter how many times it's repeated or how many games they played. For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period. The game is bad as in bad, tragic in fact and it's only the fix it mindset of players that saves it.
Re who insults who, I bash the game senseless but have yet to insult a GW designer or a player but was ofc multiple times attacked as a person. Saying the game is dumb, slowed, designed for store mums and pointless is not an insult o people playing it. I play dumb pc games, watch dumb shows and tell dumb jokes. I don't pretend they're not dumb and don't get insulted when someone tells me "you watch a dumb show". It's simple really and going for insults like pro aos brigade does is imo just a sign of logical arguments shortage. Can't blame you guys though it's quite a task you have here.
They are not wrong. The game has serious tactical depth, your denial of which isn't factual, or objective. Name ONE tactic that exists in ANY tabletop wargame that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar. No one has been able to as of yet. They have said that the benefit doesn't matter, or it is shallow, or even that it isn't worth trying. Those are opinions, and they are used solely to deny the FACT that they are wrong about the actual tactics and depth allowed within a simple core ruleset.
It is factual, you just ignore valid, logical points and shrug them off as opinion. But sure I will, I'd like you to answer my example about balance first though since you claimed numerous times that AoSRAW method is great for balance. I ask you why the rules give a strong advantage to the side that is already 25% stronger.
Really I'd love to know because if you cant see how deeply flawed the number of models method is, then I question your ability to asess tactical depth tbh.
I apologize for my previous post. It was completely out of line. I was just frustrated, and not particularly to the post I was responding to.
I was reading about a bunch of people getting upset because DriveThruRPG sold an RPG supplement with a tasteless name (the name is all they knew, but it was enough to stoke the fires of indignation). People were emailing the site telling them that as long as they sold that product, they wouldn't buy from them. And all I could think is, what gives you the right to use your money to dictate the morality of someone else? How does a website choosing to sell something you never have to buy somehow offend you so personally? Do you think the website owes you, simply for being a customer? I don't understand it, and that, more than anything, is what's so frustrating to me.
Then coming to this forum, which features a few posters of similarly entitled viewpoints, was probably not the best idea. So I was already in this frustrated state when I saw a post that I considered of a similar kind. It probably wasn't, but that's besides the point. I was absolutely wrong to take my frustrations out in such a childish manner.
This is a discussion I would one day like to have. I do see a lot of entitlement with regard to what GW owes its customers, and I would like to understand it. I want to know where such indignation come from, the manner in which it festers, and whether there is a better way of viewing the hobby that could assuage the anger before it becomes toxic. However, I am obviously not in the mindset to have that discussion today.
How does sudden death give a benefit to the larger side? The player who is outnumbered get to choose which mission to do based on his own armies perceived strength, and will most likely get to go first (unless his opponent simply fielded 1-2 HUGE blocks of single units) so they have the advantage there as well. So you are indeed wrong about the percieved bonus to the side that has the higher model count.
Now, I have not ONCE in any discussion about the validity of tactics shrugged off facts as opinion. Statements had been made that the bonuses for certain tactics weren't large enough to count, that is opinion. It has been said that there is no reason to for formations with units, that is not true, and also an opinion.
In regards to the balance, her is how you decide whether or not something is too strong for your army.
Player a: I am fielding this as my next unit.
Played b: could you not do that please
Player a: why not, it's my model and I want to use it!
Player b: because I have nothing in the collection of models I brought with me that can take it on. It would really crush my army almost by itself.
Player a has two options for balance here, either pick another model, or come up with a quick scenario that gives both players a chance to win. If player a simply refuses to not play with that model, that is on them. They simply aren't going to play, or are going to waste time and energy on a game where the winner is already determined. There, you have balance. Simple, effective, and written clearly in the rules of the game.
Now, what were those tactics that AoS doesn't have I've heard so much about? What masterful plan is incapable of being utilized in this shallow and sad system? Because I haven't heard of it yet.
In regards to the balance, her is how you decide whether or not something is too strong for your army.
Player a: I am fielding this as my next unit.
Played b: could you not do that please
Player a: why not, it's my model and I want to use it!
Player b: because I have nothing in the collection of models I brought with me that can take it on. It would really crush my army almost by itself.
Player a has two options for balance here, either pick another model, or come up with a quick scenario that gives both players a chance to win. If player a simply refuses to not play with that model, that is on them. They simply aren't going to play, or are going to waste time and energy on a game where the winner is already determined. There, you have balance. Simple, effective, and written clearly in the rules of the game.
Which is itself a problem at worst, or at best, offers the potential for a lot of hassle.
player b might just be the type of player who throws a tantrum every time someone else fields something that he doesn't like, regardless of how fair it is, or how his opponent is entirely within their rights to field their stuff. You know, because your opponent playing with nice toys is a tfg. And player a is unfairly punished because what he likes isn't seen as being in line with his opponents, regardless of the rights or wrongs of it, or the accuracy of the judgement. And I use that word, and both its main connotations deliberately.
A possible alternative ending for this scenario is as follows:
Player a: I don't mean to be cheeky mate, there's plenty ways around this unit. It's almost like youre saying 'how dare you play with your nice toys?' What's next. Calling me a tfg?
Your post sums up perfectly one of my big issues with the game and how easy it is to go wrong with it. As I said earlier.
I think it is a bad game because It relies so heavily on your opponent enabling and acqueiescing to what you want to play, and that will vary with every single person - rather than balance by good game design, it's balance by social accord, self restraint, self policing, compromise, negotiation, and ultimately, balance by social exclusion and ridicule (ie bullying) when what you want to play is not seen as being in line with your opponents or your groups expectation of the game, regardless of your own personal likes, dislikes, wants 'rights and wishes and desires' to play x,y and z.
All it takes for that whole house of cards to fall down is one player saying 'no'. As opposed to, you know, good game design.
Also. Why is is on player a to step down? Surely player b is as obligated as a to either step up, change, modifiy or borrow stuff? You know, meet in the middle, etc.
The scenario presented doesn't include an option to "step up" or borrow someone else's models. If player b isn't willing to listen to reason, how is that the game's fault exactly? What universe do these hypothetical players reside in where nobody will learn about a unit and decide that their fears were unfounded?
Also, your statement on the other possible ending automatically assumes player A is going to be more willing to be confrontational as opposed to simply explaining how they would deal with the model in question. If they really want to play it, and their opponent is unsure if they can actually have a chance to beat said unit, why wouldn't player A give them a pointer? Or, as I said before, they come up with a scenario that allows player A the chance to use his model, and allow player B a chance at victory.
Why does everyone have to automatically be aggressively trying to force other people into playing the way they personally want to play whenever these hypothetical situations arise?
If I brought a certain point value army looking for a pickup game in any system in the whole world, and nobody there had enough points to play me, in what universe would it be logical for me to make people play me without changing my stance on what point total to play at?
Just because there aren't points, doesn't mean I am unable to see reason.
Lythrandire you don't read much into post you respond to, do you?
Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period.
Azyr comp, system that takes into account difference in stats says that the army outnumbered 2:1 is actualy 25% stronger. If you don't believe said system then just tell me if you consider 100 clanrats stronger than 50 grave guard. Because the latter get sudden death out of supposed disavantage, not to mention it's a light example based on 2 random forces I took out of the cupboard that I found ready to field. The probability that stronger army will get sudden death is huge thanks to number of models method of balance and it's not a hidden gem deeply thought out rule but a nonsensical, ridiculous joke of a rule that they should be ashamed of publishing under their names. And maybe they are, the "studio" guys.
Also we're not talking about how you fix the rules with imagined gentlemans agreements. We're talking about bad rules in the bad ruleset which btw does not contain a word about how you have to agree when your opponent tells you that you can't field an unit because he/she can't counter it.
All it takes for that whole house of cards to fall down is one player saying 'no'. As opposed to, you know, good game design.
Okay, I have a few questions.
1) Couldn't you say the same thing for any games with more than one player? I've had cooperative games go south due to one player stubbornly refusing to be helpful. I've also had literal houses of cards fall down due to someone else deciding to be a jerk.
2) What is "good game design"? Is it possible that "good" is a subjective claim and thus any concept you have of "good game design" could not be supported by objective arguments?
3) Is it possible that, given "good" to be a subjective declaration, maybe there are a multitude of different game design philosophies which can result in games that are enjoyed by different people for different reasons, all of which qualify as "good" to those that enjoy them?
4) Can a game without "good game design" still be enjoyable to play, either subjectively by participant or just in a general sense of fun? Is it conceivable that someone can have more fun playing Red Light, Green Light than Chess?
5) Do you believe that you are entitled to good game design? What is the worst case scenario for a game which you do not deem good? That you simply dislike playing it? Or do you resent its very existence for not living up to your arbitrary, subjective idea of "good game design"? How much do you expect the world to revolve around your own personal tastes?
In other words, if good design is subjective and good design isn't a requirement for a game to be fun anyway, how does AoS not being "good game design" mean anything all, except "I like this other game better"? And if I say AoS is good game design and you say it is not, by what objective measurement can we say which one of us is correct?
Also. Why is is on player a to step down? Surely player b is as obligated as a to either step up, change, modifiy or borrow stuff? You know, meet in the middle, etc.
Ideally, compromise will come from both parties, but that does not mean that both parties are equally capable of compromise. For instance, if I bring 20 models and you bring 40 models, and compromise made with favor me, since I have fewer options available for compromise. In the case of a hardcore player going up against a casual, the hardcore player is simply going to be much more capable of "playing down" than the casual player is of "playing up". This isn't a reflection of the casual player's ability to play, but of the limitations imposed by a casual engagement in the game.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Lythrandire you don't read much into post you respond to, do you?
Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period.
Azyr comp, system that takes into account difference in stats says that the army outnumbered 2:1 is actualy 25% stronger. If you don't believe said system then just tell me if you consider 100 clanrats stronger than 50 grave guard. Because the latter get sudden death out of supposed disavantage, not to mention it's a light example based on 2 random forces I took out of the cupboard that I found ready to field. The probability that stronger army will get sudden death is huge thanks to number of models method of balance and it's not a hidden gem deeply thought out rule but a nonsensical, ridiculous joke of a rule that they should be ashamed of publishing under their names. And maybe they are, the "studio" guys.
Also we're not talking about how you fix the rules with imagined gentlemans agreements. We're talking about bad rules in the bad ruleset which btw does not contain a word about how you have to agree when your opponent tells you that you can't field an unit because he/she can't counter it.
Of course, anyone who ONLY fields 100 Clanrats to counter 50 Grave Guard is a bad player. The issue is not that the Grave Guard are outnumbered. It's that they're not outnumbered ENOUGH. The Skaven player needs to drop more units to have a fighting chance. The core rules cover this situation with no NEED for comp systems. All that is needed is that the Skaven player recognize he is outmatched and deploy additional units. If he doesn't recognize that he's outmatched, a game or two should get him up to speed.
2) What is "good game design"? Is it possible that "good" is a subjective claim and thus any concept you have of "good game design" could not be supported by objective arguments?
3) Is it possible that, given "good" to be a subjective declaration, maybe there are a multitude of different game design philosophies which can result in games that are enjoyed by different people for different reasons, all of which qualify as "good" to those that enjoy them?
4) Can a game without "good game design" still be enjoyable to play, either subjectively by participant or just in a general sense of fun? Is it conceivable that someone can have more fun playing Red Light, Green Light than Chess?
2) 3) You know you won't get any definitive answer (except one that will drive the discussion on and will be a base for your counter point) as anything that will be presented will be either marred by what the poster thinks is "good" or will draw its arguments from other games that are considered "good". As you're implying good is subjective. The same game which for some is "good" will be qualified as "bad" by those that don't like it. Posters here can give you their reasons why they don't like AoS and at most their own interpretation of what a good game is. The second is up to debate and is as equally defensible by the person who gives it as is easy to pick apart by one who watches from a different angle. It is an empty debate IMO. By that logic categorizing any game as "good" or "bad" is pointless. Nevertheless if such a debate would be executed in a manner that would pinpoint the definitive traits that make AoS its own game, along with the ones that people generally rule out not to use, it may have some value for bystanders. Alas this has already been done in multiple threads, with little to no effect and here's just the latest iteration with another (maybe) user. I'm not saying that debating this is without its merits, it is just the beginning of another circular dialogue with no end. "What would be a good game? Well a game that rewards players for good decisions. What would be these good decisions then? Decisions that a good game rewards."
4) Some years ago GW released Dreadfleet. It got MAULED to the ground by reviewers. A couple of months ago a friend managed to find a new copy and I played the first mission. I liked the game. I can't remember which points from the reviews came to mind during the game, but on numerous occasions I thought "Really? They grumbled over that? It's just as ok as any other mechanic". This is just an example I like to give
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The scenario presented doesn't include an option to "step up" or borrow someone else's models.
.
Ah, so it's a set-up scenario that is story boarded to come to your predetermined conclusions without any other input. Ok Thanks. You don't get to play this card in real life, by the way. Things can get more complicated.
Never said it was the games fault, just pointing out how easily the game can break down. Then again, since the game is so heavily underscored by a reliance on both players being 'reasonable', a failure in this is arguably an example of a fault in the game. Semantics really though.
And it's not necessarily about him 'listening to reason', maybe he just has a different view on what's fun. Player a doesn't necessarily have a monopoly on 'reason'. But here he is being judged and ridiculed, because essentially he wants to bring other stuff.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: What universe do these hypothetical players reside in where nobody will learn about a unit and decide that their fears were unfounded?.
The same hypothetical universe? All it takes is someone with a skewed perception. How often do we see threads with people calling x,y and z 'cheese'? You know, like marines in rhinos (there was one of those recently). Or terminators deep striking. It's not exactly 'unusual'. Or maybe they just don't want their opponent to have an equal footing. The possibility is as true for a and for b. Oh yeah, pre set scenario with pre determined conclusions.
Also, your statement on the other possible ending automatically assumes player A is going to be more willing to be confrontational as opposed to simply explaining how they would deal with the model in question. If they really want to play it, and their opponent is unsure if they can actually have a chance to beat said unit, why wouldn't player A give them a pointer? Or, as I said before, they come up with a scenario that allows player A the chance to use his model, and allow player B a chance at victory.
Who's to say? You say 'confrontational', I say 'friendly banter'. With smiles and a bit of well meaning cheek. The Internet doesn't carry tone very well. Remember that. And Who's to say b's next comment won't be a pointer as you suggest?
Why does everyone have to automatically be aggressively trying to force other people into playing the way they personally want to play whenever these hypothetical situations arise?
.
You are correct. But, Like I said, Internet and tone. Let's not forget it might not be 'aggression'. There is also the potential for passive aggressive and flat out whiny or tantrum when they don't 'play down'.
Just because there aren't points, doesn't mean I am unable to see reason.
Good for you. And fair play. But not everyone is necessarily like you. And don't forget, reason is coloured by perspective for a lot of people. What you see as 'reason', or 'reasonable' won't necessarily be shared by your opponent. And that's where aos can quite easily break down. As much as it can work with the right people with a similar attitude, it can break down beyond that.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Lythrandire you don't read much into post you respond to, do you?
Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period.
Azyr comp, system that takes into account difference in stats says that the army outnumbered 2:1 is actualy 25% stronger. If you don't believe said system then just tell me if you consider 100 clanrats stronger than 50 grave guard. Because the latter get sudden death out of supposed disavantage, not to mention it's a light example based on 2 random forces I took out of the cupboard that I found ready to field. The probability that stronger army will get sudden death is huge thanks to number of models method of balance and it's not a hidden gem deeply thought out rule but a nonsensical, ridiculous joke of a rule that they should be ashamed of publishing under their names. And maybe they are, the "studio" guys.
Also we're not talking about how you fix the rules with imagined gentlemans agreements. We're talking about bad rules in the bad ruleset which btw does not contain a word about how you have to agree when your opponent tells you that you can't field an unit because he/she can't counter it.
Did they table you? If not, what sudden death mission did they succeed in? If it ended in a minor victory, what was the difference in percentages. Also, if they are fielding heavy cavalry, why did you field medium to light infantry? There are hard counters out there, I'm sorry you ran into one.
Kriswall wrote: Of course, anyone who ONLY fields 100 Clanrats to counter 50 Grave Guard is a bad player. The issue is not that the Grave Guard are outnumbered. It's that they're not outnumbered ENOUGH. The Skaven player needs to drop more units to have a fighting chance. The core rules cover this situation with no NEED for comp systems. All that is needed is that the Skaven player recognize he is outmatched and deploy additional units. If he doesn't recognize that he's outmatched, a game or two should get him up to speed.
I still cannot fathom how people don't seem to get this! It almost seems like a number of people on here are somehow forced to play against people they can't stand.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The scenario presented doesn't include an option to "step up" or borrow someone else's models.
.
Ah, so it's a set-up scenario that is story boarded to come to your predetermined conclusions without any other input. Ok Thanks. You don't get to play this card in real life, by the way. Things can get more complicated.
Never said it was the games fault, just pointing out how easily the game can break down. Then again, since the game is so heavily underscored by a reliance on both players being 'reasonable', a failure in this is arguably an example of a fault in the game. Semantics really though.
And it's not necessarily about him 'listening to reason', maybe he just has a different view on what's fun. Player a doesn't necessarily have a monopoly on 'reason'. But here he is being judged and ridiculed, because essentially he wants to bring other stuff.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: What universe do these hypothetical players reside in where nobody will learn about a unit and decide that their fears were unfounded?.
The same hypothetical universe? All it takes is someone with a skewed perception. How often do we see threads with people calling x,y and z 'cheese'? You know, like marines in rhinos (there was one of those recently). Or terminators deep striking. It's not exactly 'unusual'. Or maybe they just don't want their opponent to have an equal footing. The possibility is as true for a and for b. Oh yeah, pre set scenario with pre determined conclusions.
Also, your statement on the other possible ending automatically assumes player A is going to be more willing to be confrontational as opposed to simply explaining how they would deal with the model in question. If they really want to play it, and their opponent is unsure if they can actually have a chance to beat said unit, why wouldn't player A give them a pointer? Or, as I said before, they come up with a scenario that allows player A the chance to use his model, and allow player B a chance at victory.
Who's to say? You say 'confrontational', I say 'friendly banter'. With smiles and a bit of well meaning cheek. The Internet doesn't carry tone very well. Remember that. And Who's to say b's next comment won't be a pointer as you suggest?
Why does everyone have to automatically be aggressively trying to force other people into playing the way they personally want to play whenever these hypothetical situations arise?
.
You are correct. But, Like I said, Internet and tone. Let's not forget it might not be 'aggression'. There is also the potential for passive aggressive and flat out whiny or tantrum when they don't 'play down'.
Just because there aren't points, doesn't mean I am unable to see reason.
Good for you. And fair play. But not everyone is necessarily like you. And don't forget, reason is coloured by perspective for a lot of people. What you see as 'reason', or 'reasonable' won't necessarily be shared by your opponent. And that's where aos can quite easily break down. As much as it can work with the right people with a similar attitude, it can break down beyond that.
Cheers
Scenario as in the real world situation presented, not in the terms of the game. If the player who has no way of defeating a model shows that to be the case, then saying they should step up or borrow someone else's models shouldn't be considered the option. Player A is not being ridiculed, he is being asked about a unit his opponent isn't sure about. Nowhere is there any ridicule.
You are correct in the internet not carrying tone well, but if the game is designed to be played by people who are able to come to an agreement about how they want to play, and are willing to do so without trying to get one over on their opponent, why should cases where that can't happen be the reason the system is bad?
If I play monopoly, and my only opponent doesn't want to do anything but be the banker because that's the only part they like doing, it isn't Parker brothers fault we don't get to game together that day.
I'm not sure which is the bigger problem with AOS, the lack of balancing mechanic or the model measuring stuff. The AOS rules would have you believe that a battle between one player with 50 elves and the other player with 60 identical elves is completely reasonable. It's not hard to see the problem there.
About the measuring stuff, it takes the terrible idea of true line of sight (say hello to modelling for advantage!) and combines it with measuring everything else from the model, not the base. That means that yes, walking onto bases is a thing by the rules as written. Your base has no game effect or presence and I need to get close to the model itself, so my guys probably will have reason to walk on your bases. That entire rule concept is laughably insane.
Scenario as in the real world situation presented, not in the terms of the game. If the player who has no way of defeating a model shows that to be the case, then saying they should step up or borrow someone else's models shouldn't be considered the option. Player A is not being ridiculed, he is being asked about a unit his opponent isn't sure about. Nowhere is there any ridicule.
Like I said, a pre defined scenario (real life or no) which was storyboarded to 'prove' predetermined conclusions without allowing for alternative input. The points I made was to illustrate that there are other narratives at play here, and alternative scenarios that make the whole thing murkier.
If player a has no way of defeating a model, please bear in mind despite your assertion that it shouldn't be considered an option, borrowing x or y is an option. Or have you never loaned a dreadnought, drop pod or warcaster your your mate for a game?
Player a new s not bring redicules in this specific scenario, but it's not hard to imagine it will lead to certain mutterings about him, 'his kind', him being tfg etc. we've already had plenty examples in aos threads along those lines of 'if he takes x, y, or z, He's a toolbag'.
You are correct in the internet not carrying tone well, but if the game is designed to be played by people who are able to come to an agreement about how they want to play, and are willing to do so without trying to get one over on their opponent, why should cases where that can't happen be the reason the system is bad?
If you've read any of my posts, you will see that in my view, if you have this, then the type of game aos promises to cater to can be achieved. Thing is, you can do this with any game, but to answer you, yes this is fine. Never disputed this.
But let's be fair, 'why should cases where that can't happen be the reason the system is bad' answers itself, and is rather self evident. If it works for you, then great, but let's not jump on the 'got mine, don't care about yours' train. Thing is, aos requires a lot of social hoops to jump through, and a lot of trust, as well as requiring like minded players who are on the same wavelength. Any of these is lacking, and you end up with a far harder time. So yes, under these circumstances, the game is bad as it breaks down very easily.
If I play monopoly, and my only opponent doesn't want to do anything but be the banker because that's the only part they like doing, it isn't Parker brothers fault we don't get to game together that day.
Make more friends! monopoly is no fun when it's justvyou vs the banks!
So, player B borrows a model and they play the game, still a good game. If the game breaks down so easily, why does it only seem to do so if your opponent is as uncarring as a mad max villain?
AoS asks you to do in other games to help balance things, as its primary mode of balance. The question is, why is that an issue then? If every game with.point totals and limitations and restrictions built into the system also suggests you talk to your opponent to get more enjoyment out of a game, why would AoS using that as a baseline instead be a real problem?
And if the answer for monopoly is to find more friends, why do people argue against the idea of just not playing someone you won't have fun with in age of sigmar?
Plumbumbarum wrote: Lythrandire you don't read much into post you respond to, do you?
Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period.
Azyr comp, system that takes into account difference in stats says that the army outnumbered 2:1 is actualy 25% stronger. If you don't believe said system then just tell me if you consider 100 clanrats stronger than 50 grave guard. Because the latter get sudden death out of supposed disavantage, not to mention it's a light example based on 2 random forces I took out of the cupboard that I found ready to field. The probability that stronger army will get sudden death is huge thanks to number of models method of balance and it's not a hidden gem deeply thought out rule but a nonsensical, ridiculous joke of a rule that they should be ashamed of publishing under their names. And maybe they are, the "studio" guys.
Also we're not talking about how you fix the rules with imagined gentlemans agreements. We're talking about bad rules in the bad ruleset which btw does not contain a word about how you have to agree when your opponent tells you that you can't field an unit because he/she can't counter it.
Of course, anyone who ONLY fields 100 Clanrats to counter 50 Grave Guard is a bad player. The issue is not that the Grave Guard are outnumbered. It's that they're not outnumbered ENOUGH. The Skaven player needs to drop more units to have a fighting chance. The core rules cover this situation with no NEED for comp systems. All that is needed is that the Skaven player recognize he is outmatched and deploy additional units. If he doesn't recognize that he's outmatched, a game or two should get him up to speed.
Nonsense. Skaven player drops more units, vc player drops more units, ofc never exceeding 2/3. Skaven player runs out of place in the deployment zone, vc player puts down last unit to stay at 2/3 -1 model and thanks to the initial 100 clanrats gets sudden death while still being much more powerful.
A game or two? If that's how you do it then I'm in awe. Why aren't you a game designer and playtester, such talent can't go to waste and I see you rolling in money amd swimming in champagne. On the other hand it really was that every AoS player can do it then I only wonder why GW didnt balance it after all, should take few days if all it takes to being able to eyeball entire armies is 2 games lol.
Then ofc there's an issue of caring around entire collections to properly utilise that ridiculous deployment method. My proposition for comp is limiting trunk size, should go well with tbe spirit of the rules.
Also, bad player? Sound awfuly competitive. Isn't the whole point to get rid of black hearted waac douche jocks that rampaged the community for years (all citation)? If it's not then what's the point of replacing points with that travesty?
Plumbumbarum wrote: Lythrandire you don't read much into post you respond to, do you?
Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period.
Azyr comp, system that takes into account difference in stats says that the army outnumbered 2:1 is actualy 25% stronger. If you don't believe said system then just tell me if you consider 100 clanrats stronger than 50 grave guard. Because the latter get sudden death out of supposed disavantage, not to mention it's a light example based on 2 random forces I took out of the cupboard that I found ready to field. The probability that stronger army will get sudden death is huge thanks to number of models method of balance and it's not a hidden gem deeply thought out rule but a nonsensical, ridiculous joke of a rule that they should be ashamed of publishing under their names. And maybe they are, the "studio" guys.
Also we're not talking about how you fix the rules with imagined gentlemans agreements. We're talking about bad rules in the bad ruleset which btw does not contain a word about how you have to agree when your opponent tells you that you can't field an unit because he/she can't counter it.
Did they table you? If not, what sudden death mission did they succeed in? If it ended in a minor victory, what was the difference in percentages. Also, if they are fielding heavy cavalry, why did you field medium to light infantry? There are hard counters out there, I'm sorry you ran into one.
Oh there was no game. Both armies were mine, I took what I had lying around and ready to field to a game night at my friends house but noone wanted to play (none of the guys played whfb ever btw and they all play skirmish wargames but hearing AoS rules was an instant nope, not a first band that did that when I proposed AoSbtw). "Let's play Age of Sigmar" is a running joke atm so the only real chance to play might be when we get completly wasted heh. I counted the models before the game and it turned out that the stronger vampire counts side would get sudden death and deploying less was not an option for skaven side either.
Sure I could take everything I own, buy $500 equivalent worth more, pack it all and have the game of AoS you describe with deploying counters etc, it still wouldn't be balanced ofc but would have a tiny bit of sense maybe. Is that really low entry point though? And what happened to "just take some models and play"? Because it seems awful for that. It's awful for everything tbh, I have no idea how does a perfect game of AoS is supposed to look like.
How dare you sir! You didn't play the game at all, and have already decided on what side would win. That is nonsense. I asked to see how bad it was, what tactics were used on the game you put forth as an example of the horrible imbalance of AoS, only to find out that your hypothetical match never occurred. Your assumption is that the azyr comp system is correct, that is rubbish.
They have had maybe 2 months worth of play testing, and are still working out kinks. If you didn't play, you can't claim the match was a bad one.
Also, waspinator (awesome name btw!) Every game gets balanced by the players. Nobody is out in the world demanding the game be played strictly by the rules in order to ensure they crush their usual opponents every game. Age of sigmar skips the pregame math and goes straight to "what are you wanting to play today"
No fighting, insults, passive aggressiveness, rudeness, or crying. Just honest, straightforward, conversation then dice rolls. With pick up games for other systems, you are there with a list or two, and hoping to find someone with that point total. With AoS, you brought models and you look at what everyone else brought to see what collection you may want pitted against. Whether it's because of the balance, the attitude of your opponent, or even that you think their army would look good on the table trading punches with your own.
The game is what it is, easy to get into, and (with someone else who is willing to agree on what you both want out of a game) enjoyable to play.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Nonsense. Skaven player drops more units, vc player drops more units, ofc never exceeding 2/3. Skaven player runs out of place in the deployment zone, vc player puts down last unit to stay at 2/3 -1 model and thanks to the initial 100 clanrats gets sudden death while still being much more powerful.
A game or two? If that's how you do it then I'm in awe. Why aren't you a game designer and playtester, such talent can't go to waste and I see you rolling in money amd swimming in champagne. On the other hand it really was that every AoS player can do it then I only wonder why GW didnt balance it after all, should take few days if all it takes to being able to eyeball entire armies is 2 games lol.
Then ofc there's an issue of caring around entire collections to properly utilise that ridiculous deployment method. My proposition for comp is limiting trunk size, should go well with tbe spirit of the rules.
Just a thought but maybe some of us want to play a quick game, not throw 100+ models on the table every time.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: So, player B borrows a model and they play the game, still a good game. If the game breaks down so easily, why does it only seem to do so if your opponent is as uncarring as a mad max villain?
As 'uncaring as a mad villain' eh? What was I saying earlier about ridiculing those that have a different view on the game? Social rejection and social exclusion. You're doing all that, As well as mockery and negative characterisation of those that want to play a different game or have different ideas of what's fun and fair.
eh? you don't need to be a mad villain to have the game break down, just two people who aren't like minded. Or selfish. Or self centred. Christ knows, there's plenty of gamers are pretty terribly socially adjusted people. Many are smug, celf centred and massively entitled. Even with the reasonable ones, Everyone has a different idea of what's 'fair' and 'reasonable'. Everyone has a different view on what's 'broken' or 'not'. Like I said, we recently had a thread where a poster was complaining about his friend who called his tac marines in rhinos cheese. Imagine the aos version of that. 'I'm not playing your sigmarites. They've got two wounds each. Theyre bloody broken'. How would your gsme go?
So fine walk away. Don't play him. Indeed. It's what a sensible grown up would do. Then again. we've got a small enough pool of players to begin with that when you risk isolating each other and walking away from each other, the games dry up. And communities die.
All You just need those differences to collide and you've got hassle. That's the problem with a game built on the foundations of social contract and a co-operative mindset. No 'mad villains' required, sadly.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: How dare you sir! You didn't play the game at all, and have already decided on what side would win. That is nonsense. I asked to see how bad it was, what tactics were used on the game you put forth as an example of the horrible imbalance of AoS, only to find out that your hypothetical match never occurred. Your assumption is that the azyr comp system is correct, that is rubbish.
They have had maybe 2 months worth of play testing, and are still working out kinks. If you didn't play, you can't claim the match was a bad one.
So 2 months is not enough but players are going to do it on the fly? Thanks for conceding your own point.
No it's neither nonsense nor rubish because the outcome of that game would be meaningles data. Playing exactly the same match with the same terrain multiple times with switching sides would be some information though still would be far from providing exact relative worth of units ofc.
Also I don't need that example. A bloodthirster, abom, slaughterbrute, terrorgheist and Nagash led by Karl Franz on the gryph get sudden death against 10 clanrats. The example was more to show that it can get bad in situations that are less clear. Which side is stronger, clanrats with abom and warlord or necromancer with gave guard and black knights? Should the latter get sudden death? Should skaven player negotiate, concede, cry tfg? Why not put fething points on it and attempt to balance and get rid of the hassle?
Sure that is some point than Azyr can be wrong. What are you going to use then to compare units, wounds, model count, your experience? Can you at least concede that number of models is the dumbest of those by far and that sudden death rule just doesnt work because 65 elite infantry fighting 99 peasanta shouldn't get a bonus?
Also is a worthless rule that might work only when players are self policing themselves a bad rule? Or is it again, "subjective".
Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer.
Plumbumbarum wrote:Oh there was no game.
?
I went to have a game game but noone wanted to play. For my last planed game? Last time I went to have a game with my friends and counted the units in an attempt to asses balance but everyone refused to play on the basis of how they percieve it stupid and pointless?
Thought shortcut, bad wording maybe. Not my first language. Next
Also I never said anything about the outcome of the game but just mentioned disproportion between wound/ model count and Azyr. It's just you picking words and dodging the actual arguments.
TheWaspinator wrote: I'm not sure which is the bigger problem with AOS, the lack of balancing mechanic or the model measuring stuff. The AOS rules would have you believe that a battle between one player with 50 elves and the other player with 60 identical elves is completely reasonable.
It is.
Try The Trap scenario, and put the 60 model force as the Invaders.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Also I don't need that example. A bloodthirster, abom, slaughterbrute, terrorgheist and Nagash led by Karl Franz on the gryph get sudden death against 10 clanrats. The example was more to show that it can get bad in situations that are less clear. Which side is stronger, clanrats with abom and warlord or necromancer with gave guard and black knights? Should the latter get sudden death? Should skaven player negotiate, concede, cry tfg? Why not put fething points on it and attempt to balance and get rid of the hassle?
The skaven player just laughs and has fun with someone else. Because the fella with the ridiculous models that you listed won't get a game with anyone, and will then rage quit and complain that the game is stupid. Joke's on him, though, because he just bought a few hundred dollars of models that nobody in their right mind would play against as a set.
TheWaspinator wrote: A game that relies on people figuring out how to balance it on their own is not a well written game.
First, this means nothing in the context of the miniature games these games and this has already been presented in one form or another throughout the discussions. Games are more exact in some areas while being more vague in others. Virtually all depend on the players to some extent to even out the game.I can re-iterate some of the given examples in case you haven't went through the older posts, but there's the possibility that you just wanted to drop it and leave it so I'll be waiting for confirmation.
Second, the notion of a "well written" or "good" (if you find the two synonymous) game is so subjective that I doubt two players, isolated from one other, will give the same definition at length, even if they were playing the same game. This is what, I think, Sqorgar tried telling by posting:
2) What is "good game design"? Is it possible that "good" is a subjective claim and thus any concept you have of "good game design" could not be supported by objective arguments?
3) Is it possible that, given "good" to be a subjective declaration, maybe there are a multitude of different game design philosophies which can result in games that are enjoyed by different people for different reasons, all of which qualify as "good" to those that enjoy them?
These were ofcourse rhetorical questions. At best, the least common denominator between all given definitions will have nothing to do with the rules themselves, but with the emotional state of the player pre, during and post game. In other words a good game will make you feel better. This is maybe why there are cases when people who don't like the next iteration of a game bash it so badly - they felt so good with the last iteration that they either can't imagine feeling good again or do not get the same quantity of organic compounds as before (although they may get some, just not on the same level they're used to). Withdrawal is a highly emotional matter
Alas, the debate of what is a "good" or "well written" game is truly endless as people often stand by firmly behind their concrete definition, as it is indeed what they search in a game to make them feel good.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Also, waspinator (awesome name btw!) Every game gets balanced by the players. Nobody is out in the world demanding the game be played strictly by the rules in order to ensure they crush their usual opponents every game. Age of sigmar skips the pregame math and goes straight to "what are you wanting to play today"
No fighting, insults, passive aggressiveness, rudeness, or crying. Just honest, straightforward, conversation then dice rolls.
I still say that this way of playing is not what a lot of people are looking for, as it precludes starting the coin toss with ,"my super awesome army that I created within the constraint system". In the same way most Magic players try to gain an advantage by having a good, stacked deck, a lot of wargamers enjoy starting the board with what they perceive is an advantage.
Which is ok; it just makes RAWAoS the wrong game for the person.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: With pick up games for other systems, you are there with a list or two, and hoping to find someone with that point total.
To be totally fair, it's usually not that bad. A couple of players can be cobbled together to play against one player with more models, and everyone can make small adjustments to make the points even up. Plus, in the local scene, certain game sizes are quite popular, so you only have to target your army for those army sizes.
The problem with 1850 vs 850 + 1000 is that the guy with the whole army is usually more experienced, has a much more cohesive army, and can mop the floor with the other 2 players.
Second, the notion of a "well written" or "good" (if you find the two synonymous) game is so subjective that I doubt two players, isolated from one other, will give the same definition at length, even if they were playing the same game. This is what, I think, Sqorgar tried telling by posting:
2) What is "good game design"? Is it possible that "good" is a subjective claim and thus any concept you have of "good game design" could not be supported by objective arguments?
3) Is it possible that, given "good" to be a subjective declaration, maybe there are a multitude of different game design philosophies which can result in games that are enjoyed by different people for different reasons, all of which qualify as "good" to those that enjoy them?
I keep it so simple. A good game is one that its target audience can have a bunch of fun with. A bad game is one that frustrates its target audience. A game does not have to be enjoyable to *everyone* to be a good. For example, lots of people have fun watching and playing baseball (or football, or golf); lots of other people think it's as boring as a bump on a log. So it's still a good game, because there are those who think it's a blast -- even though a lot of people don't see the point in it.
I keep it so simple. A good game is one that its target audience can have a bunch of fun with. A bad game is one that frustrates its target audience. A game does not have to be enjoyable to *everyone* to be a good. For example, lots of people have fun watching and playing baseball (or football, or golf); lots of other people think it's as boring as a bump on a log. So it's still a good game, because there are those who think it's a blast -- even though a lot of people don't see the point in it.
I agree with mostly of that as it is the same as "In other words a good game will make you feel better. ". Games that claim to have a target audience don't necessarily have to be enjoyed by it. The target audience will think it bad, but eventually another audience will find the game and perceive it as good. Hence the game inevitably(unless a stroke of very bad luck happens) will find its audience which considers it good and thus it will be "good". With AoS we might just be having that case .
Historicals is huge and has many shows, conventions, clubs and competitions. There are far more historical wargame mags around than SF/Fantasy.
The difference of GW is that Warhammer Fantasy/40K is so large and dominating in its market, that lots of people come into wargaming by GW and think it is the only thing.
Historicals is actually cheaper than GW by a wide margin. Table sizes needed range from small to very large. If you want to do Naval at semi-realistic scale, you need a large floor. I used to hire a community hall for a long weekend to do big naval battles like Jutland. At the smaller and of the scale, De Bellis Antiquitatis is designed to be played on a two foot square table for 15mm armies, or three foot square for 28mm.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: How dare you sir! You didn't play the game at all, and have already decided on what side would win. That is nonsense. I asked to see how bad it was, what tactics were used on the game you put forth as an example of the horrible imbalance of AoS, only to find out that your hypothetical match never occurred. Your assumption is that the azyr comp system is correct, that is rubbish.
They have had maybe 2 months worth of play testing, and are still working out kinks. If you didn't play, you can't claim the match was a bad one.
So 2 months is not enough but players are going to do it on the fly? Thanks for conceding your own point.
No it's neither nonsense nor rubish because the outcome of that game would be meaningles data. Playing exactly the same match with the same terrain multiple times with switching sides would be some information though still would be far from providing exact relative worth of units ofc.
Also I don't need that example. A bloodthirster, abom, slaughterbrute, terrorgheist and Nagash led by Karl Franz on the gryph get sudden death against 10 clanrats. The example was more to show that it can get bad in situations that are less clear. Which side is stronger, clanrats with abom and warlord or necromancer with gave guard and black knights? Should the latter get sudden death? Should skaven player negotiate, concede, cry tfg? Why not put fething points on it and attempt to balance and get rid of the hassle?
Sure that is some point than Azyr can be wrong. What are you going to use then to compare units, wounds, model count, your experience? Can you at least concede that number of models is the dumbest of those by far and that sudden death rule just doesnt work because 65 elite infantry fighting 99 peasanta shouldn't get a bonus?
Also is a worthless rule that might work only when players are self policing themselves a bad rule? Or is it again, "subjective".
The game should have been played to use it as an example of how broken the system is. Period. With your other example there, when someone who isn't lying about the situation comes in here and says they brought that giant monsters list, an their opponent only had 10 clan rats they both thought it would be a good balanced game they either had a decent chance of winning. Then I will be willing to accept that as a situation where the game broke, not a joke t beforehand.
In regards to the teaming up to fight the larger army in other games, you can do that in AoS also, and if your ally happens to have the same faction (or better yet, same army) then they will actually add to your ability with the majority of bonuses granted being based on area of effect and the targets keywords. That actually makes it more fair than the presented example because the synergy is built into the units.
Now, as an answer to the hyperbole I used in describing the non-existant players people use as their example for who in the world is breaking the game so effortlessly, it was a joke. It was used to show how truly nonsensical it is to think that people will not listen to each other (not just a one sided discussion, but a true conversation) and figure out how each of them would be able to enjoy themselves at the game. I used the example given because the notion that either of these things existing is purely fantastical and only exists in the mind of Hollywood or the internet. People don't dive into wargaming hoping to never speak to people, they are either totally fine with human interaction, or already playing with their friends. In both cases they are willing to discuss how they want to play with their opponents, sometimes weeks ahead of time.
Now, I was asked about balance as a way to steer clear of my question put forth about tactical validity. I will ask again, can you name one table top wargaming tactic that exists that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar?
Now, I was asked about balance as a way to steer clear of my question put forth about tactical validity. I will ask again, can you name one table top wargaming tactic that exists that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar?
Are you asking if AOS has typical wargamming stuff missing?
No bonuses for flanking.
Yeah, it's fun when you re-write the whole game, with actual though in it lol. I mean, tournament like that basicly fix all the thing people complains about. And that's why people are bitching: when you buy a game, you shouldn't have to re-write it in order to have structured game lol
Plumbumbarum wrote: Nonsense. Skaven player drops more units, vc player drops more units, ofc never exceeding 2/3. Skaven player runs out of place in the deployment zone, vc player puts down last unit to stay at 2/3 -1 model and thanks to the initial 100 clanrats gets sudden death while still being much more powerful.
A game or two? If that's how you do it then I'm in awe. Why aren't you a game designer and playtester, such talent can't go to waste and I see you rolling in money amd swimming in champagne. On the other hand it really was that every AoS player can do it then I only wonder why GW didnt balance it after all, should take few days if all it takes to being able to eyeball entire armies is 2 games lol.
Then ofc there's an issue of caring around entire collections to properly utilise that ridiculous deployment method. My proposition for comp is limiting trunk size, should go well with tbe spirit of the rules.
Also, bad player? Sound awfuly competitive. Isn't the whole point to get rid of black hearted waac douche jocks that rampaged the community for years (all citation)? If it's not then what's the point of replacing points with that travesty?
Oh, ok... so it's not just 50 Grave Guard then? Your argument seems as such...
1. 50 Grave Guard is stronger than 100 Clanrats.
2. You're taking 100 more Clanrats? Fine, I'll take 50 more Grave Guard.
3. 100 Grave Guard is stronger than 200 Clanrats.
Do the rules allow you to overpower an opponent who isn't willing to fill his entire deployment zone with powerful models by filling your own deployment zone with powerful models? Sure. In a practical, real world scenario, will you get to play very many games with people when you do this? Probably not. You'll quickly be labelled as a bully who isn't fun to play with.
And yes, I've been playing these types of games for near on 30 years. I can generally tell whether a match will be even and whether certain units are any good after a game or two. I would hope anyone with ~30 years of experience could do the same. Your condescending sarcasm was entertaining to read though.
Your trunk size comment was also entertaining. Completely ridiculous, but entertaining. I have yet to see anyone carting around thousands of models because they're planning on completely filling their deployment zones. Most people simply stop once they've achieved a 'reasonably' sized army. I know words like reasonable can be scary because they aren't defined in the rules. Heck, you can't even look in a dictionary to see what the word 'reasonable' has to say about army size and model count. I know this is painful and scary, but you really might have to actually talk to an opponent before each game and come up with some general guidelines. Do you want to play a big game or a small game? Oh wait... we didn't define big or small. You might need to talk to your opponent about that also. Sarcasm aside, you're not playing games against faceless and silent automatons. If you get into a silent cold war of escalation, that's on you and your opponent. That should never happen in a real world, practical scenario.
I keep it so simple. A good game is one that its target audience can have a bunch of fun with. A bad game is one that frustrates its target audience
Perhaps the AoS hate is what happens when people think they are the target audience, but aren't, and feel that their frustration is the result of it being a bad game rather than simply a misunderstanding?
Or maybe they aren't the target audience but they want to be and try to be, and the frustration comes from the difficulty of trying to wear an unfamiliar persona, to which they blame the game?
To be fair, if there are levels of power in the units, then GW could easily have given all units a power rating (or points value) to indicate their relative strength, thus avoiding the necessity for players to work it out by bitter experience.
It only took a couple of weeks for people to come up with half-decent balancing mechanisms for AoS. Why couldn't GW have just done it to start with?
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair, if there are levels of power in the units, then GW could easily have given all units a power rating (or points value) to indicate their relative strength, thus avoiding the necessity for players to work it out by bitter experience.
Considering it a bitter experience is a generalizing assumption. What if the players eyeballed the units to a close enough extent (the concrete to hit/wound rolls ease the process for example) and all they have to do is play a game? The above would be useful mostly in the case when players are min-maxing.
You might need to talk to your opponent about that also.
you can talk to your opponent all you want, if there are no rules to force him to do something or keep him in check, he will do what ever he wants. .
Do the rules allow you to overpower an opponent who isn't willing to fill his entire deployment zone with powerful models by filling your own deployment zone with powerful models? Sure. In a practical, real world scenario, will you get to play very many games with people when you do this? Probably not. You'll quickly be labelled as a bully who isn't fun to play with.
You play for 30 years? And you want to tell me that you see more people try to not win the game, then win. And who cares if someone is labeled a bully or anything else. He gets the wins, gets the enjoyment out of the money he spent on his army and you get what? fake feeling of superiority after lost game, by calling him names. That is not much, losing is never fun.
I used the example given because the notion that either of these things existing is purely fantastical and only exists in the mind of Hollywood or the internet. People don't dive into wargaming hoping to never speak to people, they are either totally fine with human interaction, or already playing with their friends. In both cases they are willing to discuss how they want to play with their opponents, sometimes weeks ahead of time.
Come here then, enter any shop and try to get a game in any system of your choosing and check how those "fantastical" armies are offten. I never tire of this argument for any system. But no one would take a combination of X units, because it would be "unfair" and then I see people starting armies by buying those exact units, the internt told me no one would ever use.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair, if there are levels of power in the units, then GW could easily have given all units a power rating (or points value) to indicate their relative strength, thus avoiding the necessity for players to work it out by bitter experience.
It only took a couple of weeks for people to come up with half-decent balancing mechanisms for AoS. Why couldn't GW have just done it to start with?
Reminds me of some very competitive multiplayer video games and how they changed throughout the years. The competitive community is basically impossible to satisfy with the base rules. They will always want to tweak. So why fight that battle constantly instead of just opening the tools to everyone and saying make it how you want it.
Now, I was asked about balance as a way to steer clear of my question put forth about tactical validity. I will ask again, can you name one table top wargaming tactic that exists that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar?
Are you asking if AOS has typical wargamming stuff missing?
No bonuses for flanking.
If I am hitting a flank they are either pulling that direction or not moving. That will keep them from possibly getting the bonuses for terrain or the capture ground sudden death victory condition. If I out flank attack fro two sides they divide their attacks and have almost no chance to retreat. So there are definite bonuses to doing either of those things.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair, if there are levels of power in the units, then GW could easily have given all units a power rating (or points value) to indicate their relative strength, thus avoiding the necessity for players to work it out by bitter experience.
It only took a couple of weeks for people to come up with half-decent balancing mechanisms for AoS. Why couldn't GW have just done it to start with?
This has not been my experience, nor has it been the experience of anyone I've played with. We play the core rules, straight out of the box. The only house rule we use is to measure from the base instead of from the model. This was done mainly so people won't feel the need to set bases on top of bases.
There has been no "bitter experience" learning curve. I also have yet to experience a lack of balance. There are plenty of balancing mechanisms built into the game... alternating deployment, sudden death objectives, first turn going to the smaller number of units, etc. Collectively, and combined with even rudimentary sportsmanship, these mechanisms have provided me with several dozen balanced games... the majority of which couldn't really be decided until very near the end.
My two cents on why GW didn't add a points system to begin with? They didn't want one. I'm certain this wasn't a last minute conversation where someone said, "crap... we forgot a points system! oh well, the community will figure something out." I'm certain they intentionally left it out to shake things up and hopefully attract new gamers and revitalize existing ones.
One thing is absolutely certain... releasing a "9th Edition" that was just an updated version of 8th Edition with the same tired mechanics and game play would have been a huge mistake. 8th Edition was a bad product in that people weren't buying it. The only way to save the product line was to torch the rules, build something new in their place and re-purpose the models.
I keep it so simple. A good game is one that its target audience can have a bunch of fun with. A bad game is one that frustrates its target audience
Perhaps the AoS hate is what happens when people think they are the target audience, but aren't, and feel that their frustration is the result of it being a bad game rather than simply a misunderstanding?
Or maybe they aren't the target audience but they want to be and try to be, and the frustration comes from the difficulty of trying to wear an unfamiliar persona, to which they blame the game?
Yep! I think this hits the nail on the head. Of course, there are disgruntled players of WHFB, too, but a lot of people who rage over AoS were NOT Fantasy Battle players.
MWHistorian wrote:I think wargames should be trying to broaden the player base, not purposely shrinking them.
I agree with you, MWH. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire player base wants the same thing, or that two players can be happy with the same game. If you look at it another way, AoS broadens the player base for the hobby by providing a different kind of game for a different kind of player, while simultaneously not appealing at all to some traditional player types. But there are plenty of games for them anyhow.
I keep it so simple. A good game is one that its target audience can have a bunch of fun with. A bad game is one that frustrates its target audience
Perhaps the AoS hate is what happens when people think they are the target audience, but aren't, and feel that their frustration is the result of it being a bad game rather than simply a misunderstanding?
Or maybe they aren't the target audience but they want to be and try to be, and the frustration comes from the difficulty of trying to wear an unfamiliar persona, to which they blame the game?
Yep! I think this hits the nail on the head. Of course, there are disgruntled players of WHFB, too, but a lot of people who rage over AoS were NOT Fantasy Battle players.
MWHistorian wrote:I think wargames should be trying to broaden the player base, not purposely shrinking them.
I agree with you, MWH. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire player base wants the same thing, or that two players can be happy with the same game. If you look at it another way, AoS broadens the player base for the hobby by providing a different kind of game for a different kind of player, while simultaneously not appealing at all to some traditional player types. But there are plenty of games for them anyhow.
I have yet to run into someone who is 'raging' against AoS and wasn't a Fantasy player before. Wouldn't a new person just say "this isn't for me" and move on? They have literally nothing at stake besides maybe a box or two of models. The rules are all free and if they weren't WFB players before it's not like they have tons of models at home that they no longer feel they can play with. This would be like me buying a ~100 USD board game and finding out that I don't like it. I wouldn't 'rage' online about it.
Is anyone here that is consistently posting about how bad the rules are brand new to fantasy? In other words, no experience with WFB at all?
MWHistorian wrote: So there is no difference if you attack someone from the front or back?
Generally in wargames, the 'front' of the unit is where the characters/leaders/special weapons are.
By attacking a unit in the 'rear', you are freezing those troops out of the combat as there is no concept of 'switching' models in AoS.
So instead of a champion and a guy with a double handed weapon dealing all the damage, you're just dealing with rank and file.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Now, I was asked about balance as a way to steer clear of my question put forth about tactical validity. I will ask again, can you name one table top wargaming tactic that exists that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar?
No I asked you about balance because I wanted to see if you can ever admit something is bad in Age of Sigmar rules. You apparently can't ofc and won't admit that model count based balance is stupid and inherently flawed. You were told multiple times why AoS is tacticaly shallow but it's ohviously pointless because you will just post "show me one tactic that's missing" like a broken record completly ignoring the fact that it's not a 0-1 thing. No offence man I think you're ok but discussing AoS in particular with you doesn't make sense imo.
I for example can tell you right away what AoS got right - increased movement range and monsters loosing effectivness when hurt. Nothing else sadly.
Anyway, on flanking, again.
There's no flanking because units don't have flanks or rear.
The poor equivalent of flanking you talk about makes sense only when:
- there's not enough place to charge the unit you want to charge in the shortest line
- the enemy unit is formed so it has a short side and even then it has to be big enough so you can limit the number of models piling in
- the enemy unit has a business in reatreating
So it is situational and most of the time it's better to hit the unit asap instead of circling around it. It's a shallow game.
I'm also certain that you find shooting into cc without friendly fire and shooting out of combat as having positive impact on tactical depth.
Btw in the other thread some AoS advocate claimed it is good because it "mitigates skill" so maybe start there with proving the tactical depth of the game heh.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Also I don't need that example. A bloodthirster, abom, slaughterbrute, terrorgheist and Nagash led by Karl Franz on the gryph get sudden death against 10 clanrats. The example was more to show that it can get bad in situations that are less clear. Which side is stronger, clanrats with abom and warlord or necromancer with gave guard and black knights? Should the latter get sudden death? Should skaven player negotiate, concede, cry tfg? Why not put fething points on it and attempt to balance and get rid of the hassle?
The skaven player just laughs and has fun with someone else. Because the fella with the ridiculous models that you listed won't get a game with anyone, and will then rage quit and complain that the game is stupid. Joke's on him, though, because he just bought a few hundred dollars of models that nobody in their right mind would play against as a set.
Could you re read? I'd really like to know whether it's my posts that are confusing or you juat answered without reading. Thanks.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Nonsense. Skaven player drops more units, vc player drops more units, ofc never exceeding 2/3. Skaven player runs out of place in the deployment zone, vc player puts down last unit to stay at 2/3 -1 model and thanks to the initial 100 clanrats gets sudden death while still being much more powerful.
A game or two? If that's how you do it then I'm in awe. Why aren't you a game designer and playtester, such talent can't go to waste and I see you rolling in money amd swimming in champagne. On the other hand it really was that every AoS player can do it then I only wonder why GW didnt balance it after all, should take few days if all it takes to being able to eyeball entire armies is 2 games lol.
Then ofc there's an issue of caring around entire collections to properly utilise that ridiculous deployment method. My proposition for comp is limiting trunk size, should go well with tbe spirit of the rules.
Also, bad player? Sound awfuly competitive. Isn't the whole point to get rid of black hearted waac douche jocks that rampaged the community for years (all citation)? If it's not then what's the point of replacing points with that travesty?
Oh, ok... so it's not just 50 Grave Guard then? Your argument seems as such...
1. 50 Grave Guard is stronger than 100 Clanrats.
2. You're taking 100 more Clanrats? Fine, I'll take 50 more Grave Guard.
3. 100 Grave Guard is stronger than 200 Clanrats.
Do the rules allow you to overpower an opponent who isn't willing to fill his entire deployment zone with powerful models by filling your own deployment zone with powerful models? Sure. In a practical, real world scenario, will you get to play very many games with people when you do this? Probably not. You'll quickly be labelled as a bully who isn't fun to play with.
And yes, I've been playing these types of games for near on 30 years. I can generally tell whether a match will be even and whether certain units are any good after a game or two. I would hope anyone with ~30 years of experience could do the same. Your condescending sarcasm was entertaining to read though.
Your trunk size comment was also entertaining. Completely ridiculous, but entertaining. I have yet to see anyone carting around thousands of models because they're planning on completely filling their deployment zones. Most people simply stop once they've achieved a 'reasonably' sized army. I know words like reasonable can be scary because they aren't defined in the rules. Heck, you can't even look in a dictionary to see what the word 'reasonable' has to say about army size and model count. I know this is painful and scary, but you really might have to actually talk to an opponent before each game and come up with some general guidelines. Do you want to play a big game or a small game? Oh wait... we didn't define big or small. You might need to talk to your opponent about that also. Sarcasm aside, you're not playing games against faceless and silent automatons. If you get into a silent cold war of escalation, that's on you and your opponent. That should never happen in a real world, practical scenario.
In short, everything's fine with the rules because people are "reasonable" and self police. Great rules, they should tell law makers about it.
Btw I'm happy to entertain. I just love to make the world better around me.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: How dare you sir! You didn't play the game at all, and have already decided on what side would win. That is nonsense. I asked to see how bad it was, what tactics were used on the game you put forth as an example of the horrible imbalance of AoS, only to find out that your hypothetical match never occurred. Your assumption is that the azyr comp system is correct, that is rubbish.
They have had maybe 2 months worth of play testing, and are still working out kinks. If you didn't play, you can't claim the match was a bad one.
So 2 months is not enough but players are going to do it on the fly? Thanks for conceding your own point.
No it's neither nonsense nor rubish because the outcome of that game would be meaningles data. Playing exactly the same match with the same terrain multiple times with switching sides would be some information though still would be far from providing exact relative worth of units ofc.
Also I don't need that example. A bloodthirster, abom, slaughterbrute, terrorgheist and Nagash led by Karl Franz on the gryph get sudden death against 10 clanrats. The example was more to show that it can get bad in situations that are less clear. Which side is stronger, clanrats with abom and warlord or necromancer with gave guard and black knights? Should the latter get sudden death? Should skaven player negotiate, concede, cry tfg? Why not put fething points on it and attempt to balance and get rid of the hassle?
Sure that is some point than Azyr can be wrong. What are you going to use then to compare units, wounds, model count, your experience? Can you at least concede that number of models is the dumbest of those by far and that sudden death rule just doesnt work because 65 elite infantry fighting 99 peasants shouldn't get a bonus?
Also is a worthless rule that might work only when players are self policing themselves a bad rule? Or is it again, "subjective".
The game should have been played to use it as an example of how broken the system is. Period.
It would be meaningless data. Period. And not an example of anything. A guy lost, was it skill, terrain, list, matchup, luck? One game proves nothing and is worthless as assesment of balance, if you don't understand that then no wonder you don't see a problem.
The system is broken because it's based on model count and it's not checkers ffs. Basic logic.
Sudden death is basically an attempt to limit relative army size when people are playing pitched-battle style games.
Everyone knows that's on the cards, so they deploy their armies accordingly. The 'must-haves' first, and so on until you decide to stop.
Yes, it can very easily be broken and bent - and there is nothing in the rules to stop you deploying a cluster of 10+ wound models.
(I'm not going to get into the 'social contract'-type discussion around what makes for an enjoyable game)
If you're playing AoS using any of the published scenarios, sudden death is ignored in favour of yes/no victory conditions for the most part anyway.
I keep it so simple. A good game is one that its target audience can have a bunch of fun with. A bad game is one that frustrates its target audience
Perhaps the AoS hate is what happens when people think they are the target audience, but aren't, and feel that their frustration is the result of it being a bad game rather than simply a misunderstanding?
Or maybe they aren't the target audience but they want to be and try to be, and the frustration comes from the difficulty of trying to wear an unfamiliar persona, to which they blame the game?
Yep! I think this hits the nail on the head. Of course, there are disgruntled players of WHFB, too, but a lot of people who rage over AoS were NOT Fantasy Battle players.
MWHistorian wrote:I think wargames should be trying to broaden the player base, not purposely shrinking them.
I agree with you, MWH. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire player base wants the same thing, or that two players can be happy with the same game. If you look at it another way, AoS broadens the player base for the hobby by providing a different kind of game for a different kind of player, while simultaneously not appealing at all to some traditional player types. But there are plenty of games for them anyhow.
I have yet to run into someone who is 'raging' against AoS and wasn't a Fantasy player before. Wouldn't a new person just say "this isn't for me" and move on? They have literally nothing at stake besides maybe a box or two of models. The rules are all free and if they weren't WFB players before it's not like they have tons of models at home that they no longer feel they can play with. This would be like me buying a ~100 USD board game and finding out that I don't like it. I wouldn't 'rage' online about it.
Is anyone here that is consistently posting about how bad the rules are brand new to fantasy? In other words, no experience with WFB at all?
Who's raging? It's hilarious to watch. This is me when talking AoS
Also it's good that fantasy died. I agree with mr. Bobtheinquisitor when he said that "fantasy was spared the horror of bloodsecrators and Murderheim". It's a shame that there will be less players but rules will get better and no paying for them anymore.
And I know people who never played fantasy that are bashing and ridiculing AoS. Sorry.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair, if there are levels of power in the units, then GW could easily have given all units a power rating (or points value) to indicate their relative strength, thus avoiding the necessity for players to work it out by bitter experience.
It only took a couple of weeks for people to come up with half-decent balancing mechanisms for AoS. Why couldn't GW have just done it to start with?
This has not been my experience, nor has it been the experience of anyone I've played with. We play the core rules, straight out of the box. The only house rule we use is to measure from the base instead of from the model. This was done mainly so people won't feel the need to set bases on top of bases.
....
Your experience while not invalid per se is only anecdotal. The wider experience as evidenced by postings to DakkaDakka is that very many people want a balancing system and numerous attempts have been made to provide one.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be fair, if there are levels of power in the units, then GW could easily have given all units a power rating (or points value) to indicate their relative strength, thus avoiding the necessity for players to work it out by bitter experience.
It only took a couple of weeks for people to come up with half-decent balancing mechanisms for AoS. Why couldn't GW have just done it to start with?
This has not been my experience, nor has it been the experience of anyone I've played with. We play the core rules, straight out of the box. The only house rule we use is to measure from the base instead of from the model. This was done mainly so people won't feel the need to set bases on top of bases.
....
Your experience while not invalid per se is only anecdotal. The wider experience as evidenced by postings to DakkaDakka is that very many people want a balancing system and numerous attempts have been made to provide one.
Which is sort of anecdotal based on the experiences of people who post to Dakka. Ultimately, my experience matters most for me and yours matters most for you.
No I asked you about balance because I wanted to see if you can ever admit something is bad in Age of Sigmar rules. You apparently can't ofc and won't admit that model count based balance is stupid and inherently flawed. You were told multiple times why AoS is tacticaly shallow but it's ohviously pointless because you will just post "show me one tactic that's missing" like a broken record completly ignoring the fact that it's not a 0-1 thing. No offence man I think you're ok but discussing AoS in particular with you doesn't make sense imo.
I for example can tell you right away what AoS got right - increased movement range and monsters loosing effectivness when hurt. Nothing else sadly.
Anyway, on flanking, again.
There's no flanking because units don't have flanks or rear.
The poor equivalent of flanking you talk about makes sense only when:
- there's not enough place to charge the unit you want to charge in the shortest line
- the enemy unit is formed so it has a short side and even then it has to be big enough so you can limit the number of models piling in
- the enemy unit has a business in reatreating
So it is situational and most of the time it's better to hit the unit asap instead of circling around it. It's a shallow game.
I'm also certain that you find shooting into cc without friendly fire and shooting out of combat as having positive impact on tactical depth.
Btw in the other thread some AoS advocate claimed it is good because it "mitigates skill" so maybe start there with proving the tactical depth of the game heh.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Also I don't need that example. A bloodthirster, abom, slaughterbrute, terrorgheist and Nagash led by Karl Franz on the gryph get sudden death against 10 clanrats. The example was more to show that it can get bad in situations that are less clear. Which side is stronger, clanrats with abom and warlord or necromancer with gave guard and black knights? Should the latter get sudden death? Should skaven player negotiate, concede, cry tfg? Why not put fething points on it and attempt to balance and get rid of the hassle?
The skaven player just laughs and has fun with someone else. Because the fella with the ridiculous models that you listed won't get a game with anyone, and will then rage quit and complain that the game is stupid. Joke's on him, though, because he just bought a few hundred dollars of models that nobody in their right mind would play against as a set.
Could you re read? I'd really like to know whether it's my posts that are confusing or you juat answered without reading. Thanks.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Nonsense. Skaven player drops more units, vc player drops more units, ofc never exceeding 2/3. Skaven player runs out of place in the deployment zone, vc player puts down last unit to stay at 2/3 -1 model and thanks to the initial 100 clanrats gets sudden death while still being much more powerful.
A game or two? If that's how you do it then I'm in awe. Why aren't you a game designer and playtester, such talent can't go to waste and I see you rolling in money amd swimming in champagne. On the other hand it really was that every AoS player can do it then I only wonder why GW didnt balance it after all, should take few days if all it takes to being able to eyeball entire armies is 2 games lol.
Then ofc there's an issue of caring around entire collections to properly utilise that ridiculous deployment method. My proposition for comp is limiting trunk size, should go well with tbe spirit of the rules.
Also, bad player? Sound awfuly competitive. Isn't the whole point to get rid of black hearted waac douche jocks that rampaged the community for years (all citation)? If it's not then what's the point of replacing points with that travesty?
Oh, ok... so it's not just 50 Grave Guard then? Your argument seems as such...
1. 50 Grave Guard is stronger than 100 Clanrats.
2. You're taking 100 more Clanrats? Fine, I'll take 50 more Grave Guard.
3. 100 Grave Guard is stronger than 200 Clanrats.
Do the rules allow you to overpower an opponent who isn't willing to fill his entire deployment zone with powerful models by filling your own deployment zone with powerful models? Sure. In a practical, real world scenario, will you get to play very many games with people when you do this? Probably not. You'll quickly be labelled as a bully who isn't fun to play with.
And yes, I've been playing these types of games for near on 30 years. I can generally tell whether a match will be even and whether certain units are any good after a game or two. I would hope anyone with ~30 years of experience could do the same. Your condescending sarcasm was entertaining to read though.
Your trunk size comment was also entertaining. Completely ridiculous, but entertaining. I have yet to see anyone carting around thousands of models because they're planning on completely filling their deployment zones. Most people simply stop once they've achieved a 'reasonably' sized army. I know words like reasonable can be scary because they aren't defined in the rules. Heck, you can't even look in a dictionary to see what the word 'reasonable' has to say about army size and model count. I know this is painful and scary, but you really might have to actually talk to an opponent before each game and come up with some general guidelines. Do you want to play a big game or a small game? Oh wait... we didn't define big or small. You might need to talk to your opponent about that also. Sarcasm aside, you're not playing games against faceless and silent automatons. If you get into a silent cold war of escalation, that's on you and your opponent. That should never happen in a real world, practical scenario.
In short, everything's fine with the rules because people are "reasonable" and self police. Great rules, they should tell law makers about it.
Btw I'm happy to entertain. I just love to make the world better around me.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: How dare you sir! You didn't play the game at all, and have already decided on what side would win. That is nonsense. I asked to see how bad it was, what tactics were used on the game you put forth as an example of the horrible imbalance of AoS, only to find out that your hypothetical match never occurred. Your assumption is that the azyr comp system is correct, that is rubbish.
They have had maybe 2 months worth of play testing, and are still working out kinks. If you didn't play, you can't claim the match was a bad one.
So 2 months is not enough but players are going to do it on the fly? Thanks for conceding your own point.
No it's neither nonsense nor rubish because the outcome of that game would be meaningles data. Playing exactly the same match with the same terrain multiple times with switching sides would be some information though still would be far from providing exact relative worth of units ofc.
Also I don't need that example. A bloodthirster, abom, slaughterbrute, terrorgheist and Nagash led by Karl Franz on the gryph get sudden death against 10 clanrats. The example was more to show that it can get bad in situations that are less clear. Which side is stronger, clanrats with abom and warlord or necromancer with gave guard and black knights? Should the latter get sudden death? Should skaven player negotiate, concede, cry tfg? Why not put fething points on it and attempt to balance and get rid of the hassle?
Sure that is some point than Azyr can be wrong. What are you going to use then to compare units, wounds, model count, your experience? Can you at least concede that number of models is the dumbest of those by far and that sudden death rule just doesnt work because 65 elite infantry fighting 99 peasants shouldn't get a bonus?
Also is a worthless rule that might work only when players are self policing themselves a bad rule? Or is it again, "subjective".
The game should have been played to use it as an example of how broken the system is. Period.
It would be meaningless data. Period. And not an example of anything. A guy lost, was it skill, terrain, list, matchup, luck? One game proves nothing and is worthless as assesment of balance, if you don't understand that then no wonder you don't see a problem.
The system is broken because it's based on model count and it's not checkers ffs. Basic logic.
[/spoiler]
There is balance. If two people are placing models to counter the percieved strengths of their opponents models, then the one who is outnumbered should be given a slight advantage. No scenario put forth as an example showed any thought in what models were being played or how they were deployed. I am certainly able to admit problems with a system, measurements and line of sight should be done based on actual body parts like 40k. There should have been at least 3 scenarios given for free with the rules to allow people to see examples of the style of game AoS is conducive to. Hell, I even have a proposed rule thread discussing a tournament balancing system for it. What I will not do is say that a friendly discussion about what you want to play is a bad way to balance the game because it is by far the best way to balance anything.
Now, who cares if flanks are not identified? People have been flanking armies, units, and groups forever without having to be told there is a reason to do so. How do you flank a unit of skirmishers? Or a block of infantry with a wall/building to either side? How about a block of spearmen on top of a hill with spears and shields facing out like a porcupine? Flanking is always situational, period. Instead of worrying about pilling on extra game mechanics for benefits for being in formations and attacking them from different angles, you have tactical options presented the limited options a unit has while engaged in regards to movement and their ability to attack to base your tactics around.
As for shooting into and out of combat, it is a cinematic game. Most shooting units can't compete with the damage output of dedicated melee units, especially when within 3" of someone. So, they get to continue shooting while in combat. Hell, the shots that miss are the ones being distracted, or the archers who were just killed are still trying to buy time for their buddies to put down the enemy giant. There are fluff and statistical reasons to allow it, so why not?
MWHistorian wrote: So there is no difference if you attack someone from the front or back?
Generally in wargames, the 'front' of the unit is where the characters/leaders/special weapons are.
By attacking a unit in the 'rear', you are freezing those troops out of the combat as there is no concept of 'switching' models in AoS.
So instead of a champion and a guy with a double handed weapon dealing all the damage, you're just dealing with rank and file.
Just putting it out there but that is not 'generally in wargames' to me. In 40k yes. AoS apparently. Warhammer fantasy used to reduce the number of attacks back at you and a bonus to combat res. Kings of War gives you double or triple your number of attacks. Warmachine and Hordes you get extra damage. Infinity you get an unopposed roll since you're out of your opponent's LOS when normally they could defend themselves and shoot back.
Hell, games like Dystopian Wars and Battlefleet Gothic flanking your enemy means they can't bring certain weapons to bear since you are outside their arc. Come to think of it even 40k vehicles usually have lower rear armour.
Your experience while not invalid per se is only anecdotal. The wider experience as evidenced by postings to DakkaDakka is that very many people want a balancing system and numerous attempts have been made to provide one.
Which is sort of anecdotal based on the experiences of people who post to Dakka. Ultimately, my experience matters most for me and yours matters most for you.
When you collect a mass of anecdotal evidence from different people it becomes quantifiable. That is the case on DakkaDakka. You personally have experienced X. I can look at the thousands of users and find that 75% (made up figure) say one thing and 25% say the opposite.
Ultimately of course your personal situation is the one that matters to you, but GW need to look at the overall market if they are to create games that will be commercially successful.
There is a large body of opinion that AoS needs a balancing mechanism. People have written a number them and they are being used in tournaments. The tournament that is the topic of this thread used one.
It simply is undeniable that there is a lot of demand for a balancing system in the game.
I'm really enjoying the passive aggressiveness from people trying to defend Age of Sigmar. My favourite defence so far has been those trying to attack competitive games in general, while my second favourite is the classic "it's just the internet!" fallacy.
Yes you can say flank charge is situational period but there are degrees of situational. As in "never forget" in KoW vs "maybe if the planets are right" in AoS. As in "crucial" to " rarely relevant", "game deciding" to "not important in the end" etc. You will have to move to double tap, or few guys less will fight back, or you will stop some retreat in AoS when in other games you will rout/ decimate units that would otherwise stand their ground for turns.
Yes it's not absolute. You can have two gunlines in whfb never moving to circle the opponent and an odd small game in AoS where the attack to the short side will win you the game. That doesn't change the fact the fact that the former, thanks to facing and bonuses for flank and rear charges requires much more forethought in movement phase than the latter where you just freely roam the battlefield with directionoess blobs that can sometimes be micromanaged for attack efficiency.
MWHistorian wrote: So there is no difference if you attack someone from the front or back?
Generally in wargames, the 'front' of the unit is where the characters/leaders/special weapons are.
By attacking a unit in the 'rear', you are freezing those troops out of the combat as there is no concept of 'switching' models in AoS.
So instead of a champion and a guy with a double handed weapon dealing all the damage, you're just dealing with rank and file.
Just putting it out there but that is not 'generally in wargames' to me. In 40k yes. AoS apparently. Warhammer fantasy used to reduce the number of attacks back at you and a bonus to combat res. Kings of War gives you double or triple your number of attacks. Warmachine and Hordes you get extra damage. Infinity you get an unopposed roll since you're out of your opponent's LOS when normally they could defend themselves and shoot back.
Hell, games like Dystopian Wars and Battlefleet Gothic flanking your enemy means they can't bring certain weapons to bear since you are outside their arc. Come to think of it even 40k vehicles usually have lower rear armour.
Also in 40k "flanking" the models behind cover with shooty unit can make a big difference of 4++ vs nothing. Situational ofc and I'd love modifiers for shooting at targets in the open but much more decesive than in AoS where you're better to double tap asap. Ofc40k is a simpleton and shallow game as well but AoS somehow managed to beat it as far as shallow goes.
MWHistorian wrote: So there is no difference if you attack someone from the front or back?
Generally in wargames, the 'front' of the unit is where the characters/leaders/special weapons are.
By attacking a unit in the 'rear', you are freezing those troops out of the combat as there is no concept of 'switching' models in AoS.
So instead of a champion and a guy with a double handed weapon dealing all the damage, you're just dealing with rank and file.
Just putting it out there but that is not 'generally in wargames' to me. In 40k yes. AoS apparently. Warhammer fantasy used to reduce the number of attacks back at you and a bonus to combat res. Kings of War gives you double or triple your number of attacks. Warmachine and Hordes you get extra damage. Infinity you get an unopposed roll since you're out of your opponent's LOS when normally they could defend themselves and shoot back.
Hell, games like Dystopian Wars and Battlefleet Gothic flanking your enemy means they can't bring certain weapons to bear since you are outside their arc. Come to think of it even 40k vehicles usually have lower rear armour.
True, and in every one of those games there is some definition of facing or sight arc within the rules, so they can define a bonus for utilising that.
It is still possible to garner a 'bonus' within AoS based on manoeuvring. It's just a lot more situational, and can't be summed up as "I'm stood here so I get X".
Whether that qualifies as good/bad/tactical/whatever is personal opinion, but it's possible to do.
Imposter101 wrote: I'm really enjoying the passive aggressiveness from people trying to defend Age of Sigmar. My favourite defence so far has been those trying to attack competitive games in general, while my second favourite is the classic "it's just the internet!" fallacy.
As opposed to the active aggressiveness from some detractors? (And, to be fair, a lot of passive aggressiveness as well, the most egregious being the classic "AoS is a game for babies" or equivalent, sometimes followed by "but that's totally ok, even I enjoy a baby game now and then!" *pats head*)
As opposed to the active aggressiveness from some detractors? (And, to be fair, a lot of passive aggressiveness as well, the most egregious being the classic "AoS is a game for babies" or equivalent, sometimes followed by "but that's totally ok, even I enjoy a baby game now and then!" *pats head*)
And your response is snide, nasty and inaccurate.
This is neither 'active aggression' nor is it an accurate statement (so thanks for misrepresentation, I think). Where is the post that says 'aos is a game for babies', eh? Or 'a game for babies'. And where is the head patting?
Perhaps there needs to be some rule that states any Age of Sigmar topic that reaches over two pages gets immediately locked. That seems to consistently be the point where any usefulness gets replaced by skub wars.
Saying "AoS is for kids" doesn't mean you are a kid because you play it. It makes you an adult playing kid's game. I for example truly enjoy Winnie the Pooh, does it make me a kid? Stop with the fallacy.
Also I for example would be much nicer if every advocate acted like mr. Talys or mr. Hulksmash but then comes a boor like mr. Jack Flask with his "gakshow of whining man-children" and there you go.
Again there's a difference between insulting people and insulting people's creation, understanding that simple fact would help immensly with toning down the discussion. I for example don't consider any of my disputants dumb, shallow, simple, childish etc for a single second, you just happen to be dead wrong on this particular topic guys, nothing else
Once the argument gets to active/passive aggression of the two sides, firstly you have forgotten the wide spectrum of opinion in the middle, and secondly you are straying off the substantive points in to ad hominem territory.
However I also have faith in the good sense of users to get back to the topic.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Saying "AoS is for kids" doesn't mean you are a kid because you play it. It makes you an adult playing kid's game. I for example truly enjoy Winnie the Pooh, does it make me a kid? Stop with the fallacy.
I'm sorry, I missed the part where the cannibal that murdered Pooh's family came back for Pooh because he wanted his head to complete the great pyramid of skulls he's been working on.
Stop with the condescension. Saying that AoS is a kids' game is not just factually incorrect but condescending and insulting to those who enjoy it. No amount of disclaimers change that, you may as well be saying "I'm not racist, but..."
AoS has a fairly simple ruleset. This by itself isn't a mark for or against it and nor does mean the game's for kids. You could fit the rules to Chess on even less than four pages and play the game fairly well before your teens, yet nobody considers it a kid's game. The only reason people saying it of AoS is to put it, and the people who play it, down.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Also I for example would be much nicer if every advocate acted like mr. Talys or mr. Hulksmash but then comes a boor like mr. Jack Flask with his "gakshow of whining man-children" and there you go.
Then how about setting an example yourself? The gak isn't just coming from the pro-skub side I can assure you, and if everyone discussed the game in the way Killwall and Kilkrazy did this topic would be a much more enjoyable read.
Once the argument gets to active/passive aggression of the two sides, firstly you have forgotten the wide spectrum of opinion in the middle, and secondly you are straying off the substantive points in to ad hominem territory.
However I also have faith in the good sense of users to get back to the topic.
Yeah I wasn't really being serious. Though this topic in particular seems to have gone past the point of no return.
Ultimately of course your personal situation is the one that matters to you, but GW need to look at the overall market if they are to create games that will be commercially successful.
To be fair, I think they have a good idea of the type of player they are aiming at. It just so happens it isn’t the hardcore element (including me, by the way) that wants clean, watertight games with intricate and detailed mechanics.
There is a large body of opinion that AoS needs a balancing mechanism. People have written a number them and they are being used in tournaments. The tournament that is the topic of this thread used one.
It simply is undeniable that there is a lot of demand for a balancing system in the game.
There is a large body of opinion from a certain section of the community. Plenty others seem to be happy enough. Let’s be clear; I don’t disagree with you. At all. I’d personally prefer a more structured game. That said; AOS has a balancing mechanism – figure it out with your opponent as to what you want to play. Be creative and design some interesting scenarios and match ups. If your opponent is a bellend, don’t play them. Don’t dismiss it Killkrazy, this approach has merit (and I say that in the context of any game). It can be fun, and opens up the game by putting you in the driving seat. Let’s also be clear; this approach is not perfect, or ‘better’, it needs certain requirements to function, has limitations and it not (nor should it be) the go-to option all the time. I just see it as a style of play that not a lot of gamers are familiar with, or exposed to.
And also, as a counter point to ‘there is a large body of opinion that AOS needs a balancing mechanism’, surely one can turn this round and argue that rather than trying to change the game, maybe it’s the players that should change; maybe the players should, or could change their attitudes, and maybe step out and try a different way of playing wargames rather than simply assuming the wargame itself is the problem, and that their way of flaying is fautless, or at least is the ‘proper’ way to play a game (because it’s what they’re familiar with maybe, or else their way is all they’ve been exposed to?), and that anything else is somehow flawed? I don’t see it as any different to travelling to a foreign country and insisting on eating McDonalds or fish ‘n’ chips; surely you should try the local cuisine and see merit in how other cultures operate? And let’s be honest – gaming cultures are a thing. They exist. Some are ‘familiar’. Some are ‘foreign’. All should be embraced, or at least, sampled. Most deserve some modicum of respect. My $0.02.
I though the OP was about people having fun in a certain tournament. You know, a tournament that made up BALANCING rules that every player requested when AoS came out.
I mean, some people need to wake up. AoS is not a ''bad'' game per say, but having points or some sort of actual balancing would make it better. Hence why every event I've saw so far, or youtube channel playing AoS, have come out with their OWN rule to BALANCE army selection.
Everybody prefer playing by the book (or use a tiny bit of houserulling) instead of playing houserule with a tiny bit of the actual rule. If AoS would have a simple balance system, I could see the game survive. Without it, it's going to be only small groups, playing here and there, without mixing into other shop and stuff because you simply can't without good rule. It's not me being a TFG, it's just human nature: We need rule to behave ourselves. If you don't think so, I don't know what to tell you... maybe you are an anarchist? If one day we have more anarchist than other people, you will be right.
Your experience while not invalid per se is only anecdotal. The wider experience as evidenced by postings to DakkaDakka is that very many people want a balancing system and numerous attempts have been made to provide one.
Which is sort of anecdotal based on the experiences of people who post to Dakka. Ultimately, my experience matters most for me and yours matters most for you.
When you collect a mass of anecdotal evidence from different people it becomes quantifiable. That is the case on DakkaDakka. You personally have experienced X. I can look at the thousands of users and find that 75% (made up figure) say one thing and 25% say the opposite.
Ultimately of course your personal situation is the one that matters to you, but GW need to look at the overall market if they are to create games that will be commercially successful.
There is a large body of opinion that AoS needs a balancing mechanism. People have written a number them and they are being used in tournaments. The tournament that is the topic of this thread used one.
It simply is undeniable that there is a lot of demand for a balancing system in the game.
You do realize that the people posting to the AoS sub forums on Dakka represent a vocal minority so far as GW is concerned, right? People vote with their wallets. GW fundamentally changed the way balancing works in their Fantasy line and sales increased. The larger anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that people are just fine with the changes.
I'll grant you that there is some demand for a points or force org based balancing system in Age of Sigmar. Is it a lot? That's very hard to tell when you're only hearing from vocal minorities. It's very possible that the majority of players (who don't post regularly on Dakka about AoS) are just fine with how the new rules are setup.
Ultimately, you can't make all of the people happy all of the time. So long as sales increase, I would expect GW to keep on trucking and ignoring the tournament scene.
My criticism of AOS isn't that it's simple. X-Wing is simple and its a fantastic game.
The problem I see with AOS is that it's shallow. X-Wing, while simple, has a lot of complexity and a lot of tactical depth. By tactical depth I mean there is a lot of different things you can do. Working hard to get behind an opponent is very rewarding and small changes in ships and pilots make big differences. (Just to name a few)
AOS, while simple, doesn't reward (as much) tactical maneuvers and the differences between units aren't that big. Which leads units and battle strategy to be homogeneous despite the large variety of units.
Simple games can be awesome. I love simple games.
Silly games can be awesome. I love Munchikin.
But somehow AOS seems to do both of those in the wrong way.
In other words, its not the concept of AOS, but the execution.
Oh, and they need a balancing mechanism to be viable in the long term.
Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?
More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?
More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?
Warmachine, Infinity and Malifaux reward maneuvering and don't have every or any units in formations.
Boom.
MWHistorian wrote: My criticism of AOS isn't that it's simple. X-Wing is simple and its a fantastic game.
The problem I see with AOS is that it's shallow. X-Wing, while simple, has a lot of complexity and a lot of tactical depth. By tactical depth I mean there is a lot of different things you can do. Working hard to get behind an opponent is very rewarding and small changes in ships and pilots make big differences. (Just to name a few)
AOS, while simple, doesn't reward (as much) tactical maneuvers and the differences between units aren't that big. Which leads units and battle strategy to be homogeneous despite the large variety of units.
I partially agree. X-Wing is a game where movement is one of the most important decisions you make on a per turn basis. Movement is simply less important in AoS. You're comparing apples and oranges.
By contrast, unit synergies are far more important and complex in AoS than they are in X-Wing. I can take a Lothern Sea Helm and give a Highborn unit re-rolls to hit, wound and armor at the expense of having to remain stationary. I might be wrong as I don't know all the units in X-Wing, but I believe ship upgrades primarily impact just the upgraded ship and that you don't get much cross over. I.e., taking Vader doesn't give any bonuses to other Tie Fighters in your list.
Also, I'd challenge your assertion that differences between units aren't that big. Nagash versus a swarm of 50 Night Goblins versus a Dwarf Cannon? These units aren't very similar at all. In X-Wing you tend to have... ships... that move and shoot? Sure, they have different equipment, weapons and abilities, but so do the AoS units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: We have no idea of the sales stats on AoS so that line of argument is impossible to follow up until the half-year report in January.
Certainly GW gave up on tournaments several years ago. Previously they had enthusiastically supported tournaments since the 1980s.
We also have no idea what the average player thinks about AoS in regards to balancing mechanisms. I guess we'll have to wait until a comprehensive third party survey is done using an appropriate sample of GW's customer base.
Until then, I'm willing to allow you to use your anecdotal evidence from forum posters and tournament goers that some people would prefer a points system if you're willing to allow me to use my anecdotal evidence from retailers that the fantasy line is selling better.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Saying "AoS is for kids" doesn't mean you are a kid because you play it. It makes you an adult playing kid's game. I for example truly enjoy Winnie the Pooh, does it make me a kid? Stop with the fallacy.
I'm sorry, I missed the part where the cannibal that murdered Pooh's family came back for Pooh because he wanted his head to complete the great pyramid of skulls he's been working on.
Stop with the condescension. Saying that AoS is a kids' game is not just factually incorrect but condescending and insulting to those who enjoy it. No amount of disclaimers change that, you may as well be saying "I'm not racist, but..."
AoS has a fairly simple ruleset. This by itself isn't a mark for or against it and nor does mean the game's for kids. You could fit the rules to Chess on even less than four pages and play the game fairly well before your teens, yet nobody considers it a kid's game. The only reason people saying it of AoS is to put it, and the people who play it, down.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Also I for example would be much nicer if every advocate acted like mr. Talys or mr. Hulksmash but then comes a boor like mr. Jack Flask with his "gakshow of whining man-children" and there you go.
Then how about setting an example yourself? The gak isn't just coming from the pro-skub side I can assure you, and if everyone discussed the game in the way Killwall and Kilkrazy did this topic would be a much more enjoyable.
Sorry you can't expect that from me, I'm a natural born troll having nasty drug withdrawals with seizure looming over my head and 90% of time I post from the phone being in the middle of work not to mention severe headache from dry eyes syndrome even just taking a look at the site. Not excuses mind you just reasons why I don't spend much time on my posts, also I don't care whether discussion is polite or not, I just told you why the tone of my posts is how it is. Anyway with all that I still happen to be nicer than some advocates lol.
Pooh was just an example of how enjoying things for kids does not make you a kid, or childish or sth. Also it's neither condescending nor insulting, hyperbole much? I think it's a really stupid game with no identity and borked rules that are all over a place written by a marketing department. Is that opinion of mine condescending and insulting? If so, who was insulted and how?
Not read the whole nine pages, but to take it back to the OP premise: yes people ca have fun playing AoS.
This is because its not root canal work, its not calculating a tax return or having to negotiate a divorce settlement. It's a game,
played by gamers in their chosen genre. This has been a minimum value for toy soldiers since H.G.Well's Little Wars and before.
Comparing AoS to activities that are not "FUN" is a little dishonest as indeed games are there for people to have fun and in that it is presumably judged successful product. However fun is something that can be had from any entertainment system you prefer.
However highlighting this as a specific positive betray the lack of quality of AoS One doesn't need to call a game fun if one plays it. It can be presumed that entertainments as video games, football, chess and miniatures wargaming are fun to those who choose play it, and itonly ceases to be fun if you dont want to play.
To highlight a games inherent fun as a point of quality in fact shows what an appalling product AoS is. Let me break this down.
We don't need to be told that 40K is fun, or that it is more or less fun than say Dropzone Commander or Infinity. People will have their own subjective preferences on which hey enjoy more, bt basically they will all be fun or not played, nd the games should be judged on their merits against each other for different reasons, such as how balanced or tactical they are or the quality of the supporting miniatures.
Highlighting AoS on the grounds it is fun isnt comparing it to other games, they yardstick has now slipped by its apologists to comparing it to things that are not fun.
Essentially it all boils down to this. Those who use the fun argument are no comparing AoS to Kings of War, or WHFB 8th or Malifaux. Their standard is comparing AoS to homework or completing tax returns, or cleaning the toilet. So Age of Sigmar is 'fun', OK, are congratulations are in order? Probably not.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?
More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?
Man I answered that in the other thread at least two times, I remember the thought crossing my mind that you don't read my post or at least don't read into them and I have that again.
40k has that loose formation, model representing exact soldier position business for 2 editions and it's simplistic to 11, you don't give it a second thought after a game or two. AoS is terrible for what you propose because it's too simple, models have no facing and you can't represent anything specific because there are no modifiers etc. Micromanagment of directionless blobs in AoS is not deep gameplay.
Regiment based gameplay still allows to use terrain and loadouts, actualy terrain matters more when units have vulnerable sides/ rear.
If you made a detailed skirmish ruleset and played big battles on it then sure, it could be deep though obviously unwieldy and much too micromanagey. AoS though drops depth from unit based games but doesn't bring depth from skirmish games. It's something in the middle that has no advantages over anything.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?
More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?
Man I answered that in the other thread at least two times, I remember the thought crossing my mind that you don't read my post or at least don't read into them and I have that again.
40k has that loose formation, model representing exact soldier position business for 2 editions and it's simplistic to 11, you don't give it a second thought after a game or two. AoS is terrible for what you propose because it's too simple, models have no facing and you can't represent anything specific because there are no modifiers etc. Micromanagment of directionless blobs in AoS is not deep gameplay.
Regiment based gameplay still allows to use terrain and loadouts, actualy terrain matters more when units have vulnerable sides/ rear.
If you made a detailed skirmish ruleset and played big battles on it then sure, it could be deep though obviously unwieldy and much too micromanagey. AoS though drops depth from unit based games but doesn't bring depth from skirmish games. It's something in the middle that has no advantages over anything.
No advantages? I challenge.
The biggest advantage that I've seen new players comment on is that it's EASY to learn. New players can be up in running in minutes. There is no cumbersome reference library to keep referring back to. You don't need to learn the convoluted movement rules associated with formations, flanks, etc, nor do you need to learn the convoluted facing and line of sight rules associated with some styles of skirmish play. Instead, you learn a simplified rule set and start playing more or less right away.
I'd also like to point out that the simplicity has resulted in a pretty tight rule set. Go look at the 40k You Make Da Call forum. Now go look at the Age of Sigmar You Make Da Call forum. Which has more issues? Other than a couple of isolated issues, the Age of Sigmar YMDC forum is a ghost town. Even the issues that do pop up tend to have a general consensus and are driven primarily by one or two individuals who won't accept consensus. The rules may be vague at points and rely on the players for certain things, but I haven't seen the vicious rules bickering that I see in 40k. Generally speaking, we all know how the game is supposed to work. Some people just want it to work differently (i.e., want to introduce comp or limit summoning, etc).
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?
More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?
Warmachine, Infinity and Malifaux reward maneuvering and don't have every or any units in formations.
Boom.
And, what bonus does the game give for flank attacks for those? What are the bonuses for maneuvering in those games? With AoS, my bonuses for maneuvering based on terrain utilization, propper use of area of effect bonuses from different units, gaining statistical advantages by limiting enemy rebuttal, and denial of the enemy's ability to bring in reinforcements due to the safe zone surrounding my units (3" area you can never enter in the movement phase, the various distances a unit in reserves must maintain upon arival, and the 9" bubble you can't summon within) so there are your easy to understand, apparently under utilised, bonuses for tactical maneuvering.
Age of sigmar has no formations, so doesn't give bonuses for flanking them specifically. Why does age of sigmar get grief for this when other games do the same?
Edit:plumbumbarum, age of sigmar is in between those two systems in size and scope, yet allows you to play at either end of the spectrum. 40k gets flakk for trying to have too many skirmish style rules in its ruleset, AoS got rid of things like model specific facing to enable you to play at the various levels you want to without the hassle the skirmish level details entail. That is why the game is written how it is, it is so open ended in regards to how the players want to play that they left the specifics of game size out of the equation and enabled you to use the exact same rules for 35 models as you do for 200+. Is it optimal at the highest and lowest end of the spectrum? No, there are games specific to those levels that outshine age of sigmar, but how well does kings of war do in regards to tactics if all I have are 2 10 man units to play with? How well does the gameplay scale with warmachines when I want to play a game with an army of over 150 models? Neither of those games can swing as far in scope as age of sigmar can, and it has everything to do with its simple, and easily expandable ruleset.
Are people bragging about essentially thru heavy composition a homebrew version of the woefully I'll prepared AoS like its some sort of GW triumph now? Because that is sad. Tell you what. When we find a system universally revered so that pickup games can be balanced and fun as well as hardcore tournaments, i will wave the victory flag with everyone. Until then the OP should change the title to : see, heavily rewritten and adjusted AoS can be fun. Because its not nearly the same.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?
More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?
Man I answered that in the other thread at least two times, I remember the thought crossing my mind that you don't read my post or at least don't read into them and I have that again.
40k has that loose formation, model representing exact soldier position business for 2 editions and it's simplistic to 11, you don't give it a second thought after a game or two. AoS is terrible for what you propose because it's too simple, models have no facing and you can't represent anything specific because there are no modifiers etc. Micromanagment of directionless blobs in AoS is not deep gameplay.
Regiment based gameplay still allows to use terrain and loadouts, actualy terrain matters more when units have vulnerable sides/ rear.
If you made a detailed skirmish ruleset and played big battles on it then sure, it could be deep though obviously unwieldy and much too micromanagey. AoS though drops depth from unit based games but doesn't bring depth from skirmish games. It's something in the middle that has no advantages over anything.
No advantages? I challenge.
The biggest advantage that I've seen new players comment on is that it's EASY to learn. New players can be up in running in minutes. There is no cumbersome reference library to keep referring back to. You don't need to learn the convoluted movement rules associated with formations, flanks, etc, nor do you need to learn the convoluted facing and line of sight rules associated with some styles of skirmish play. Instead, you learn a simplified rule set and start playing more or less right away.
That would surely be an advantage if it it didn't sacrifice so much depth. If it had, I don't know, true alternate activations, issuing orders in secret,some mini game around initiative like in Armada, anything really then you could say it has advanantage. Not to mention I don't think points on warscrolls would impact learning time that much unless the gamer has yet to start maths in pre school.
Also how much space would it take to explain in the rules that every model has facing, 180 arc los and anything that hits it outside said arc gets a bonus/modifier/ effect? Because I just did. It's not rocket science and the even the kids mentioned here that are so insulting to some are usualy very smart and can learn something like that without problems. Ofc it's top of my head example and would surely increase game time (and potentialy limit reasonable game size, surely marketing dept would hate that) but the point is that you could do it in a simple and not convoluted way still.
That's the thing imo, they could have made it streamlined and easy to learn but deep, those are not exclusive. That would be a succes worthy of GW size and history and a system having an advantage over the others imo.
I think the front arc / rear arc issue- if it was even ever considered - was probably dropped for the same reason bases were.
Infinity and WMH both have arc defined in the rules (IIRC, Infinity uses the model's actual facing and in WMH it's the parallel line through shoulders or something?)
Either way, easy to do with round bases in case of any disagreement, and players have got into the habit of painting markers on their bases anyway.
Square/rectangular bases, it's a lot more difficult to judge the centre using the above mechanics, and whilst saying corner-to-corner defines the arcs, this wouldn't work for round bases, etc. etc.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?
More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?
Warmachine, Infinity and Malifaux reward maneuvering and don't have every or any units in formations.
Boom.
And, what bonus does the game give for flank attacks for those? What are the bonuses for maneuvering in those games? With AoS, my bonuses for maneuvering based on terrain utilization, propper use of area of effect bonuses from different units, gaining statistical advantages by limiting enemy rebuttal, and denial of the enemy's ability to bring in reinforcements due to the safe zone surrounding my units (3" area you can never enter in the movement phase, the various distances a unit in reserves must maintain upon arival, and the 9" bubble you can't summon within) so there are your easy to understand, apparently under utilised, bonuses for tactical maneuvering.
Age of sigmar has no formations, so doesn't give bonuses for flanking them specifically. Why does age of sigmar get grief for this when other games do the same?
Just putting it out there but that is not 'generally in wargames' to me. In 40k yes. AoS apparently. Warhammer fantasy used to reduce the number of attacks back at you and a bonus to combat res. Kings of War gives you double or triple your number of attacks. Warmachine and Hordes you get extra damage. Infinity you get an unopposed roll since you're out of your opponent's LOS when normally they could defend themselves and shoot back.
Hell, games like Dystopian Wars and Battlefleet Gothic flanking your enemy means they can't bring certain weapons to bear since you are outside their arc. Come to think of it even 40k vehicles usually have lower rear armour.
With alternating combat actions and pile in actions, front and back arcs become cumbersome. Players would spend an inordinate amount of time in every single combat turn trying to manipulate their 3" movement into maximum number of back hits, causing combat to drag on forever. You don't get a lot of control over how you move during the pile in, making alternating combat much faster despite having both moving and hitting from units on both teams every turn.
Think of combat as an abstraction of combat between mobs of units rather than a direct one-to-one model correspondence - that's why you can have five people attack one guy and have a dude in the back of the unit, not in line of sight, die.
Lythrandire, if there are games outshining AoS at specific scales then maybe GW should do 2 rulesets, or should have kept whfb and introduce skirmish warhammer. And 40k gets flak for meaningless skirmish rules in the ruleset, lot of hassle little depth. I think if they added direction limited reaction fire or sth then then the hasle would be justified maybe.
Anyway I see what you mean but just disagree that the direction GW took with a game is good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: With alternating combat actions and pile in actions, front and back arcs become cumbersome. Players would spend an inordinate amount of time in every single combat turn trying to manipulate their 3" movement into maximum number of back hits, causing combat to drag on forever. You don't get a lot of control over how you move during the pile in, making alternating combat much faster despite having both moving and hitting from units on both teams every turn.
Think of combat as an abstraction of combat between mobs of units rather than a direct one-to-one model correspondence - that's why you can have five people attack one guy and have a dude in the back of the unit, not in line of sight, die.
Noone says that all the rules would have to be the same with facing introduced. All I wanted to say is that you could get deeper rules on those 4 pages.
Noone says that all the rules would have to be the same with facing introduced. All I wanted to say is that you could get deeper rules on those 4 pages.
How would you define deeper though? Facing rules would add complexity and choice without greatly improving the number of tactical outcomes. Warmachine, for example, doesn't just give a bonus to back hits. There are shields and shield walls which only apply to front arcs, such that back hits are more situationally useful, sometimes overruling a unit's strongest benefits. If AoS did not add similar rules (in 4 pages), it would be a simple positional bonus that would either be too small to be worthwhile, or so worthwhile that people would always try for it, dominating the strategy for the game as units circled each other trying to pat each other on the butt first.
With AoS, they picked one important gameplay mechanic (control zones) and then defined all the rest of the rules around it. Control zones make positioning very important, and make things like flanking attacks or back hits valuable without having to explicitly define extra rules and benefits.
I had an epiphany today. I've said before that AoS reminds me of mageknight. What it actually brings to mind is mageknight conquest, which was the big points expansion for it. They took a skirmish level game, took away the bonuses for positioning for all the non unique units, and allowed for more action than would normally be possible in the core game.
Also in mageknight they realised how silly it is that a person couldn't turn around most of the time when someone is walking towards them, they had a special rule that allowed that sort of thing on certain units, everything else got a free spin. There shouldn't be THAT much of a bonus in a skirmish game for running around someone before trying to hit them. They see you.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I had an epiphany today. I've said before that AoS reminds me of mageknight. What it actually brings to mind is mageknight conquest, which was the big points expansion for it. They took a skirmish level game, took away the bonuses for positioning for all the non unique units, and allowed for more action than would normally be possible in the core game.
Also in mageknight they realised how silly it is that a person couldn't turn around most of the time when someone is walking towards them, they had a special rule that allowed that sort of thing on certain units, everything else got a free spin. There shouldn't be THAT much of a bonus in a skirmish game for running around someone before trying to hit them. They see you.
Battles get kind of confusing and paying attention to everyone around you is a little difficult at best. Believe me.
But a good question was raised. Would having back arcs be too confusing and ruin the simplicity of the game?
I think if well done, then no and would add more strategic depth (aka, choices and their consequences) to the game.
But at skirmish level, when it is you and one other guy who just walked directly in front of you, without cover to get behind you, why would there ever be a mechanic that disallows your single model from turning on the spot and taking the attack?
I've been training in various martial arts since I was 13, the idea of that situation makes me want to grind my teeth. Especially when I know that a unit of soldiers in loose formation will have spotters in all directions to anticipate enemy advances and allow the unit to react. There were always outriders for columns in warfare, always. If an enemy was spotted the column would halt and take up a defensive position. That is why I don't like the idea that a block of soldiers would or even could be swept just because somebody got behind them on the table top. They know the enemy is out there, the soldiers heads arent actually glued in place, and warhorns are used to signify more than just the charge, but also enemy movement.
The game doesn't need more restrictions to give reasons to do something in game that shouldn't actually have a reason to happen on the tabletop in the first place.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: But at skirmish level, when it is you and one other guy who just walked directly in front of you, without cover to get behind you, why would there ever be a mechanic that disallows your single model from turning on the spot and taking the attack?
I've been training in various martial arts since I was 13, the idea of that situation makes me want to grind my teeth. Especially when I know that a unit of soldiers in loose formation will have spotters in all directions to anticipate enemy advances and allow the unit to react. There were always outriders for columns in warfare, always. If an enemy was spotted the column would halt and take up a defensive position. That is why I don't like the idea that a block of soldiers would or even could be swept just because somebody got behind them on the table top. They know the enemy is out there, the soldiers heads arent actually glued in place, and warhorns are used to signify more than just the charge, but also enemy movement.
The game doesn't need more restrictions to give reasons to do something in game that shouldn't actually have a reason to happen on the tabletop in the first place.
Then you are woefully wrong. See soldiers in formation are fighting soldiers in front of them, if the enemy are next to them or behind them, something has gone wrong on the battle line and this means they are all dead if they don't flee. See if it was just one formation against one formation, then yes no flanking will occur, but remember battles with formations start out as large lines with goal of breaking through the line. You do this by breaking formation and then exploiting the gap.
It's also worth noting the above is exactly how it works in Kings of War. If the enemy is going to flank you, simply turn your unit around. This means you are invulnerable to flank attacks (unless magic is involved) when fighting isolated as one unit vs one unit. However what do you do when multiple units from multiple angles are attacking you? You can't just turn and face them, you have to break formation which means you are going to die (usually).
Even in skirmish style battle this is true. You can watch battle rein actors do this all the time, the goal when in a group fight is to have some guys get behind the others and then mess them up. Humans cannot fight backwards.
Musicians NEVER signified enemy movement, they are for giving out orders like movement speed, formations and so on. They had a chain of command for finding out where the enemy is, but infantry never had dedicated scouts telling them everything around them (not normal anyway). Light units formed their own screening units or dispatch units. This is why soldiers and low level officers had no initiative until modern war, because they don't know the whole picture. They take orders from those who do (chain of command again) and simply carried out orders to the letter (unless the order was misheard).
Flanks and so on aren't made up voodoo, they are how wars are won and formations are not as flexible as you'd think, remember we are talking a lot of men in a big group doing rehearsed orders. In reality if the enemy infantry got behind your lines your battle line (army) would crumble quickly.
In short, in a very small scale 1 on 1 unit combat, unless some trickery is involved, you aren't likely to be flanked and if you do it is not for long (in kings of war you can rotate after the initial hit to face your attacker) but when you start talking armies flanking is critical for both soldiers concerns and over all battle plan.
here is some help from Wikipedia (this is for ancient warfare, but flanking is always used even today but it is incredibly important in formation warfare).
The Hoplite Phalanx was weakest when facing an enemy fielding lighter and more flexible troops without its own such supporting troops. An example of this would be the Battle of Lechaeum, where an Athenian contingent led by Iphicrates routed an entire Spartan mora (a unit of anywhere from 500 to 900 hoplites). The Athenian force had a considerable proportion of light missile troops armed with javelins and bows which wore down the Spartans with repeated attacks, causing disarray in the Spartan ranks and an eventual rout when they spotted Athenian heavy infantry reinforcements trying to flank them by boat.
The Macedonian Phalanx had weaknesses similar to its hoplitic predecessor. Theoretically indestructible from the front, its flanks and rear were very vulnerable, and once engaged it may not easily disengage or redeploy to face a threat from those directions. Thus, a phalanx facing non-phalangite formations required some sort of protection on its flanks—lighter or at least more mobile infantry, cavalry, etc. This was shown at the Battle of Magnesia, where, once the Seleucid supporting cavalry elements were driven off, the phalanx was static and unable to go on the offensive against its Roman opponents (although they continued to resist stoutly and attempted a fighting withdrawal under a hail of Roman missiles, until the elephants posted on their flanks panicked and disrupted their formation).
Finally, most of the phalanx-centric armies tended to lack supporting echelons behind the main line of battle. This meant that breaking through the line of battle or compromising one of its flanks often ensured victory.
That is from wikipedia in regards to the Phalanx which back then refereed to tight groups of pole arm soldiers (not always pole arms though). However any competent source will refer to flanking and how formations fight throughout history.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: But at skirmish level, when it is you and one other guy who just walked directly in front of you, without cover to get behind you, why would there ever be a mechanic that disallows your single model from turning on the spot and taking the attack?
I've been training in various martial arts since I was 13, the idea of that situation makes me want to grind my teeth. Especially when I know that a unit of soldiers in loose formation will have spotters in all directions to anticipate enemy advances and allow the unit to react. There were always outriders for columns in warfare, always. If an enemy was spotted the column would halt and take up a defensive position. That is why I don't like the idea that a block of soldiers would or even could be swept just because somebody got behind them on the table top. They know the enemy is out there, the soldiers heads arent actually glued in place, and warhorns are used to signify more than just the charge, but also enemy movement.
The game doesn't need more restrictions to give reasons to do something in game that shouldn't actually have a reason to happen on the tabletop in the first place.
Then you are woefully wrong. See soldiers in formation are fighting soldiers in front of them, if the enemy are next to them or behind them, something has gone wrong on the battle line and this means they are all dead if they don't flee. See if it was just one formation against one formation, then yes no flanking will occur, but remember battles with formations start out as large lines with goal of breaking through the line. You do this by breaking formation and then exploiting the gap.
It's also worth noting the above is exactly how it works in Kings of War. If the enemy is going to flank you, simply turn your unit around. This means you are invulnerable to flank attacks (unless magic is involved) when fighting isolated as one unit vs one unit. However what do you do when multiple units from multiple angles are attacking you? You can't just turn and face them, you have to break formation which means you are going to die (usually).
Even in skirmish style battle this is true. You can watch battle rein actors do this all the time, the goal when in a group fight is to have some guys get behind the others and then mess them up. Humans cannot fight backwards.
Musicians NEVER signified enemy movement, they are for giving out orders like movement speed, formations and so on. They had a chain of command for finding out where the enemy is, but infantry never had dedicated scouts telling them everything around them (not normal anyway). Light units formed their own screening units or dispatch units. This is why soldiers and low level officers had no initiative until modern war, because they don't know the whole picture. They take orders from those who do (chain of command again) and simply carried out orders to the letter (unless the order was misheard).
Flanks and so on aren't made up voodoo, they are how wars are won and formations are not as flexible as you'd think, remember we are talking a lot of men in a big group doing rehearsed orders. In reality if the enemy infantry got behind your lines your battle line (army) would crumble quickly.
In short, in a very small scale 1 on 1 unit combat, unless some trickery is involved, you aren't likely to be flanked and if you do it is not for long (in kings of war you can rotate after the initial hit to face your attacker) but when you start talking armies flanking is critical for both soldiers concerns and over all battle plan.
The entire point of medieval tactics was to break the formations. That's why length of battle lines, flanking cavalry, and breaking through were so important. It was why they had reserves, to block the holes the from because if they don't, the enemy that flank or break through will tear through the flanks and rear of the lines like wet tissue.
For example: Battle of Cynoscephalae. The lighter, more maneuverable manipular legions were able to get around and outflank the heavier and slower phalanxes. Getting to the sides and rear was essential.
I could go on and on about how important and vital flanking was to medieval warfare. But really, there's not point. It was. It defined medieval warfare. What you see in the movies where two unorginized hordes crash into each other with mass chaos and the hero finds his arch nemesis in the melee, its all crap and resembles nothing of medieval warfare.
"But it's fantasy, it aint supposed to be realistic!" you say.
True, it is fantasy, but there needs to be logic and reason to the things in a make believe world. If something does differ, it needs to be explained and rationalized to fit the world.
AOS is that movie battle where two unorganized masses just crash into each other. Looks good on the screen but it breaks my immersion and is just boring.
The term "fog of war" isn't just an academic term. It's very real. When you're in battle, the world shrinks drastically. You're aware of what's immediately around you and little else. Its why communication is so vitally important. I know because I've been to war. Gak gets hectic real fast.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: But at skirmish level, when it is you and one other guy who just walked directly in front of you, without cover to get behind you, why would there ever be a mechanic that disallows your single model from turning on the spot and taking the attack?
I've been training in various martial arts since I was 13, the idea of that situation makes me want to grind my teeth. Especially when I know that a unit of soldiers in loose formation will have spotters in all directions to anticipate enemy advances and allow the unit to react. There were always outriders for columns in warfare, always. If an enemy was spotted the column would halt and take up a defensive position. That is why I don't like the idea that a block of soldiers would or even could be swept just because somebody got behind them on the table top. They know the enemy is out there, the soldiers heads arent actually glued in place, and warhorns are used to signify more than just the charge, but also enemy movement.
The game doesn't need more restrictions to give reasons to do something in game that shouldn't actually have a reason to happen on the tabletop in the first place.
Then you are woefully wrong. See soldiers in formation are fighting soldiers in front of them, if the enemy are next to them or behind them, something has gone wrong on the battle line and this means they are all dead if they don't flee. See if it was just one formation against one formation, then yes no flanking will occur, but remember battles with formations start out as large lines with goal of breaking through the line. You do this by breaking formation and then exploiting the gap.
It's also worth noting the above is exactly how it works in Kings of War. If the enemy is going to flank you, simply turn your unit around. This means you are invulnerable to flank attacks (unless magic is involved) when fighting isolated as one unit vs one unit. However what do you do when multiple units from multiple angles are attacking you? You can't just turn and face them, you have to break formation which means you are going to die (usually).
Even in skirmish style battle this is true. You can watch battle rein actors do this all the time, the goal when in a group fight is to have some guys get behind the others and then mess them up. Humans cannot fight backwards.
Musicians NEVER signified enemy movement, they are for giving out orders like movement speed, formations and so on. They had a chain of command for finding out where the enemy is, but infantry never had dedicated scouts telling them everything around them (not normal anyway). Light units formed their own screening units or dispatch units. This is why soldiers and low level officers had no initiative until modern war, because they don't know the whole picture. They take orders from those who do (chain of command again) and simply carried out orders to the letter (unless the order was misheard).
Flanks and so on aren't made up voodoo, they are how wars are won and formations are not as flexible as you'd think, remember we are talking a lot of men in a big group doing rehearsed orders. In reality if the enemy infantry got behind your lines your battle line (army) would crumble quickly.
In short, in a very small scale 1 on 1 unit combat, unless some trickery is involved, you aren't likely to be flanked and if you do it is not for long (in kings of war you can rotate after the initial hit to face your attacker) but when you start talking armies flanking is critical for both soldiers concerns and over all battle plan.
The entire point of medieval tactics was to break the formations. That's why length of battle lines, flanking cavalry, and breaking through were so important. It was why they had reserves, to block the holes the from because if they don't, the enemy that flank or break through will tear through the flanks and rear of the lines like wet tissue.
For example: Battle of Cynoscephalae. The lighter, more maneuverable manipular legions were able to get around and outflank the heavier and slower phalanxes. Getting to the sides and rear was essential.
I could go on and on about how important and vital flanking was to medieval warfare. But really, there's not point. It was. It defined medieval warfare. What you see in the movies where two unorginized hordes crash into each other with mass chaos and the hero finds his arch nemesis in the melee, its all crap and resembles nothing of medieval warfare.
"But it's fantasy, it aint supposed to be realistic!" you say.
True, it is fantasy, but there needs to be logic and reason to the things in a make believe world. If something does differ, it needs to be explained and rationalized to fit the world.
AOS is that movie battle where two unorganized masses just crash into each other. Looks good on the screen but it breaks my immersion and is just boring.
The term "fog of war" isn't just an academic term. It's very real. When you're in battle, the world shrinks drastically. You're aware of what's immediately around you and little else. Its why communication is so vitally important. I know because I've been to war. Gak gets hectic real fast.
Oh I agree and it's also huge in Napoleonic warfare (more familiar with). Scattering/flanking the enemy even in one location means you can pretty much win.
It's actually my main turn off from many games/movies.
The fog of war you mention effects medieval soldiers (or any formation soldier) because guys further back of the formation don't know whats going on, while the front are too busy poking the enemy to know whats going on, so disorder can happen really fast as someone sees what he thinks is bad, makes a run for it and heaps of clueless people follow.
The earliest known depictions of warfare show small skirmish groups of bowmen fighting in line and trying to outflank each other. (Cave paintings in Spain, from 3,000 BC.) Flanks have always been important historically and are still an important element of modern warfare.
There are all sorts of reasons why men fight in a way that means they have vulnerable flanks and rear. However there's no point arguing about whether flanks are important, or why, because the empirical evidence is overwhelming.
That said, there's no reason why fantasy games have to follow realistic principles. In fact I would rather they had more fantastic elements. I can play a realistic historical game any time I like, I don't need a fantasy game to do realism.
Flanks and formations undoubtedly were left out of AoS in order to simplify the rules. That arguably is an acceptable compromise to make in order to get a very short rulebook.
There are all sorts of reasons why men fight in a way that means they have vulnerable flanks and rear. However there's no point arguing about whether flanks are important, or why, because the empirical evidence is overwhelming.
That said, there's no reason why fantasy games have to follow realistic principles. In fact I would rather they had more fantastic elements. I can play a realistic historical game any time I like, I don't need a fantasy game to do realism.
I gave a presentation at a writer's conference about that very subject. I wrote it all down. I go into a lot of detail about fantasy warfare and the do's and don'ts of realism. For example, the concept of logistics are over looked. Wars are won and lost on getting beans, bullets (or blades in this case) blankets and bodies where they need to be when they need to be there. AOS ignores this concept entirely. Not on the tabletop of course, but in the fluff. The Imperial Guard are often mentioned as winning in the novels because they can bring more men and material in enough quantities to win. Wait....did I just use 40k as a good example of something?
Basically, "because its fantasy" isn't a good argument at all.
If you're interested, take a look.
http://minimumwagehistorian.com/2013/12/19/history-for-the-fantasy-and-sci-fi-writer/
I understand the importance of flanking maneuvers and formations in the real world, you have told me nothing I wasn't aware of. But if someone is inside your lines, you can shield out every side and brace for an all around assault. And that would be done by the order of the drummer/ horn blower giving commands.
Now, again, why am I supposed to be forced to us them in a fantasy game? How well did the Spartans do the last time they fought a wizard who conjured up a living, breathing lightning storm? What were Napoleon's tactics for combating zombie dragons who breathacid and can't feel pain? How long did it take ceasar to conquer the 12 foot tall canibal giants riding mastadons and occasionally breathing fire?
Real world, how well does a full phalanx hold a castle wall? How effective was it at fighting in dense forest, or in city streets? Rocky or mountainous terrain? Swamplands? There are reasons to be in formation, there are reasons to break formation. Both are tactical choices made based on what circumstance and you enemy demand.
And again, why should I be forced to field my army in a way I don't like because you prefer it. And if I don't have to by the rules, how does that make it a bad game?
We are both micromanaging. I, my individual models in a ruleset that allows for unrestricted movement for the best statistical advantage. You, the directionality within a very restrictive movement ruleset of small blocks of warriors for the best statistical advantage. I don't see how mine is shallow but yours is not because there isn't a difference of tactical ability involved, you just don't like the particular tactics of the system I prefer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, mwhistorian, in modern warfare, how often do soldiers flank up? Exactly. In a skirmish game when 10-20 guys are moving around looking for an enemy they aren't going to do so staring straight ahead in a block. That is stupid. There will be guys who's job it is to look behind and to the side in case someone is sneaking up. In this world daemons will materialise from nothing against a moments notice, and chameleonic lizard people will step from the trees and soundlessly kill a whole platoon whenever they feel like. The tactics you're proposing as to how you win wars would have lost every single conflict in the warhammer world. Why would they use them?
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: How well did the Spartans do the last time they fought a wizard who conjured up a living, breathing lightning storm? What were Napoleon's tactics for combating zombie dragons who breathacid and can't feel pain? How long did it take ceasar to conquer the 12 foot tall canibal giants riding mastadons and occasionally breathing fire?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, mwhistorian, in modern warfare, how often do soldiers flank up? Exactly. In a skirmish game when 10-20 guys are moving around looking for an enemy they aren't going to do so staring straight ahead in a block. That is stupid. There will be guys who's job it is to look behind and to the side in case someone is sneaking up. In this world daemons will materialise from nothing against a moments notice, and chameleonic lizard people will step from the trees and soundlessly kill a whole platoon whenever they feel like. The tactics you're proposing as to how you win wars would have lost every single conflict in the warhammer world. Why would they use them?
Wait, are you trying to lecture a combat veteran on modern warfare?
Oh boy.
Yes, flanking is still a very very important part of modern warfare.
Okay, first off, guns are loud. Explosions are louder. There's a lot of both going on. When someone's shooting at you, your attention to what's going on elsewhere is drastically limited.
The confusion and chaos of modern warfare is as real as it was a thousand years ago. Things get crazy.
Maintaining that control as much as possible is vital to winning, but it's like keeping a rampaging lion in a wicker basket.
I was a machine gunner. Carried a SAW. My job, when attacked, was to hold my position while laying down as much covering fire as possible. The reason for this was so that a flanking element can go around to the side or rear and kill the enemy while I keep their heads down.
That isn't just theoretical, that's how it works. It's easier to kill something when its attention is elsewhere. We wouldn't do it if it didn't work.
Also, tunnel vision. People tend to focus on the thing that's immediately trying to kill them.
Chaos. With grenades and machinegun fire going off everywhere, it's often difficult to hear orders at all. Or perhaps you misunderstand the orders. Whatever. There's so many variables that I'll just say, fog of war.
Ambushes. Attacking someone from the side when they're not expecting it creates a brief but very vital moment of confusion. In a gunfight, seconds count.
I'm talking from experience, btw. I'm not just saying what I think it's like. Any other soldier will tell you the same thing.
Yes, there are often soldiers assigned to watch the flanks, (Especially in urban settings) but that's an ideal and not always the case.
Please don't assume that you know more about modern warfare than I do. It's a very complicated subject and unless someone's been there, it's difficult to explain. You can't get an understanding of it from playing Call of Duty.
Okay, first off, guns are loud. Explosions are louder. There's a lot of both going on. When someone's shooting at you, your attention to what's going on elsewhere is drastically limited.
The confusion and chaos of modern warfare is as real as it was a thousand years ago. Things get crazy.
Maintaining that control as much as possible is vital to winning, but it's like keeping a rampaging lion in a wicker basket.
I was a machine gunner. Carried a SAW. My job, when attacked, was to hold my position while laying down as much covering fire as possible. The reason for this was so that a flanking element can go around to the side or rear and kill the enemy while I keep their heads down.
That isn't just theoretical, that's how it works. It's easier to kill something when its attention is elsewhere. We wouldn't do it if it didn't work.
Also, tunnel vision. People tend to focus on the thing that's immediately trying to kill them.
Chaos. With grenades and machinegun fire going off everywhere, it's often difficult to hear orders at all. Or perhaps you misunderstand the orders. Whatever. There's so many variables that I'll just say, fog of war.
Ambushes. Attacking someone from the side when they're not expecting it creates a brief but very vital moment of confusion. In a gunfight, seconds count.
I'm talking from experience, btw. I'm not just saying what I think it's like. Any other soldier will tell you the same thing.
Yes, there are often soldiers assigned to watch the flanks, (Especially in urban settings) but that's an ideal and not always the case.
Please don't assume that you know more about modern warfare than I do. It's a very complicated subject and unless someone's been there, it's difficult to explain. You can't get an understanding of it from playing Call of Duty.
As another veteran, I respect what you are saying.
Though, if we pay more attention to what he wrote, he says..
Also, mwhistorian, in modern warfare, how often do soldiers flank up?
While many hours were spent practicing and using flanking maneuvering, and it's exactly like you describe, I think what he meant to say was "rank up.", and that all the talk about flanks got the better of his mind there for a moment. I say this because "Flank up" is not common verbage, though "rank up" is, especially in WFB circles. I also think anyone, even one who has his entire knowledge of warfare limited to CoD, understands that attacking from behind or the side is an advantage.
I don't agree that that's the case since you don't know what anyone else's experience is, especially since this is games were are talking about not actual soldering.
I think you have taken this thread to a whole new level of absurd. Not that it needed it.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: How well did the Spartans do the last time they fought a wizard who conjured up a living, breathing lightning storm? What were Napoleon's tactics for combating zombie dragons who breathacid and can't feel pain? How long did it take ceasar to conquer the 12 foot tall canibal giants riding mastadons and occasionally breathing fire?
Wait... did the Spartans not fight Wizards?
The whole reason I used to like WHFB is because I thought it was cool the way ranked soldiers squared off against dragons and giants and whatnot. Any individual soldier is just going to end up as strawberry jam and a big beasty will just rampage through a loose formation of weak soldiers to feast on the women and children in the village behind the lines.
I find the imagery of ranks of soldiers doing their best to hold the line against giant beasties and foul magic to be a more inspiring thought and also more tactically interesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thunderfrog wrote: even one who has his entire knowledge of warfare limited to CoD, understands that attacking from behind or the side is an advantage.
90% of my kills in COD4 came from running away from my team and trying to catch the enemy unaware on the flank, so satisfying to walk in to an area and gun down 5 people who were all looking the other way
I don't agree that that's the case since you don't know what anyone else's experience is, especially since this is games were are talking about not actual soldering.
I think you have taken this thread to a whole new level of absurd. Not that it needed it.
Wait...I was answering your question about why flanks was important in modern or any warfare. How is my first hand experience about the question being asked absurd?
And I do know others experiences. Soldiers talk. My grandfather experienced similar situations in WWII. (among others I've spoken to over the years)
Which goes back to AOS in that it lacks a very vital part of warfare and wargamming. Its one of the reasons I find the game unappealing. It breaks my immersion.
@ AllSeeingSkink - While I don't disagree to the imagery, in the scenario of big beasties attacking ranked units do you not imagine a loose formation would be better than a ranked one? Jason and the Argonauts style?
Horses are one thing but a Dragon verses a regiment might be like a human versus a hedgehog?
I don't agree that that's the case since you don't know what anyone else's experience is, especially since this is games were are talking about not actual soldering.
I think you have taken this thread to a whole new level of absurd. Not that it needed it.
Wait...I was answering your question about why flanks was important in modern or any warfare. How is my first hand experience about the question being asked absurd? And I do know others experiences. Soldiers talk. My grandfather experienced similar situations in WWII. (among others I've spoken to over the years) Which goes back to AOS in that it lacks a very vital part of warfare and wargamming. Its one of the reasons I find the game unappealing. It breaks my immersion.
No you were dismissing some other chaps point because you suggest know best as an authority. I disagree that your authority cannot be questioned.
Ancient armies had to fight elephants, which is something of an equivalent to a zombie dragon.
The best tactic was loose skirmishing groups of light infantry, with no armour and light missile weapons such as javelins and bows.
Apart from the lack of heavy plate armour and warhammers these loose formations were probably fairly similar to AoS groups, only they had to be careful not to get caught by formed infantry or cavalry, since being spread out they lacked mutual support and heavy weapons, and were easily defeated by formed troops.
notprop wrote: @ AllSeeingSkink - While I don't disagree to the imagery, in the scenario of big beasties attacking ranked units do you not imagine a loose formation would be better than a ranked one? Jason and the Argonauts style?
Horses are one thing but a Dragon verses a regiment might be like a human versus a hedgehog?
I don't agree that that's the case since you don't know what anyone else's experience is, especially since this is games were are talking about not actual soldering.
I think you have taken this thread to a whole new level of absurd. Not that it needed it.
Wait...I was answering your question about why flanks was important in modern or any warfare. How is my first hand experience about the question being asked absurd?
And I do know others experiences. Soldiers talk. My grandfather experienced similar situations in WWII. (among others I've spoken to over the years)
Which goes back to AOS in that it lacks a very vital part of warfare and wargamming. Its one of the reasons I find the game unappealing. It breaks my immersion.
No you were dismissing some other chaps point because you suggest know best as an authority. I disagree that your authority cannot be questioned.
Large warbeasts aren't a fantasy thing. Elephants are quite large and were used in warfare. Concentrated missile fire and formation movements stopped them.
Someone asked about modern warfare. I told them my first hand experiences which also happen to match up with everyone else I've spoken to.
If you have different experiences or evidence, please, bring it forward. If you want to ignore first hand accounts of warfare, that's your call. But I urge you to go research the topic on your own and learn about it so you're not coming from a position of ignorance. You will find that my experiences do reflect the reality.
notprop wrote: While I don't disagree to the imagery, in the scenario of big beasties attacking ranked units do you not imagine a loose formation would be better than a ranked one? Jason and the Argonauts style?
Horses are one thing but a Dragon verses a regiment might be like a human versus a hedgehog?
Well obviously it's all theorising because these things don't exist But yeah I think many times a ranked formation would do a better job (on some occasions at least). I think a loose formation would just be brushed aside, it might take less casualties, but it also wouldn't do anything to halt the beast. A ranked formation can present a unified block of sharp pointy things and actually provide some weight to counter the momentum of the beast and a block of archers can unleash volleys to put the hurting on.
Maybe if the beast was just going for a stroll through the woods a loose formation might have a better chance of bringing it down, but I figure since they're actually in a *battle*, there must be some tactical reason to stop the beasty.
That's kind of what was cool about WHFB, a giant charges in to a unit of weaklings and either impacts heavily enough to break the formation, or gets tarpitted, or maybe overwhelmed.
I guess I've never really like skirmish games though WHFB (like 40k) had scaling issues though, the actual number of troops in a block of infantry was small compared to what you'd expect in reality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Ancient armies had to fight elephants, which is something of an equivalent to a zombie dragon.
The best tactic was loose skirmishing groups of light infantry, with no armour and light missile weapons such as javelins and bows.
Apart from the lack of heavy plate armour and warhammers these loose formations were probably fairly similar to AoS groups, only they had to be careful not to get caught by formed infantry or cavalry, since being spread out they lacked mutual support and heavy weapons, and were easily defeated by formed troops.
Interesting. I was under the impression not a lot was known for sure about Elephant tactics, but it was thought they were easily scared by in battle and didn't fare well against javelins.
Haven't people already given many examples on how flanking does indeed give an advantage in AoS, just not one tied to a specific Flanking rule? Here are some I found in this thread but I've read others writing more stuff in other threads.
Now, I was asked about balance as a way to steer clear of my question put forth about tactical validity. I will ask again, can you name one table top wargaming tactic that exists that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar?
Are you asking if AOS has typical wargamming stuff missing?
No bonuses for flanking.
If I am hitting a flank they are either pulling that direction or not moving. That will keep them from possibly getting the bonuses for terrain or the capture ground sudden death victory condition. If I out flank attack fro two sides they divide their attacks and have almost no chance to retreat. So there are definite bonuses to doing either of those things.
And, what bonus does the game give for flank attacks for those? What are the bonuses for maneuvering in those games? With AoS, my bonuses for maneuvering based on terrain utilization, propper use of area of effect bonuses from different units, gaining statistical advantages by limiting enemy rebuttal, and denial of the enemy's ability to bring in reinforcements due to the safe zone surrounding my units (3" area you can never enter in the movement phase, the various distances a unit in reserves must maintain upon arival, and the 9" bubble you can't summon within) so there are your easy to understand, apparently under utilised, bonuses for tactical maneuvering.
MWHistorian wrote: ..Large warbeasts aren't a fantasy thing. Elephants are quite large and were used in warfare. Concentrated missile fire and formation movements stopped them.
Someone asked about modern warfare. I told them my first hand experiences which also happen to match up with everyone else I've spoken to.
If you have different experiences or evidence, please, bring it forward. If you want to ignore first hand accounts of warfare, that's your call. But I urge you to go research the topic on your own and learn about it so you're not coming from a position of ignorance. You will find that my experiences do reflect the reality.
Yeah and you dismissed them for not being a soldier, they could be anyone with any experience.
Your experiences reflect your reality not everyone else's. Try to bring that to the discussion rather than carte blanche assuming it trumps all others.
notprop wrote: While I don't disagree to the imagery, in the scenario of big beasties attacking ranked units do you not imagine a loose formation would be better than a ranked one? Jason and the Argonauts style?
Horses are one thing but a Dragon verses a regiment might be like a human versus a hedgehog?
Well obviously it's all theorising because these things don't exist But yeah I think many times a ranked formation would do a better job (on some occasions at least). I think a loose formation would just be brushed aside, it might take less casualties, but it also wouldn't do anything to halt the beast. A ranked formation can present a unified block of sharp pointy things and actually provide some weight to counter the momentum of the beast and a block of archers can unleash volleys to put the hurting on.
Maybe if the beast was just going for a stroll through the woods a loose formation might have a better chance of bringing it down, but I figure since they're actually in a *battle*, there must be some tactical reason to stop the beasty.
That's kind of what was cool about WHFB, a giant charges in to a unit of weaklings and either impacts heavily enough to break the formation, or gets tarpitted, or maybe overwhelmed.
I guess I've never really like skirmish games though WHFB (like 40k) had scaling issues though, the actual number of troops in a block of infantry was small compared to what you'd expect in reality.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Ancient armies had to fight elephants, which is something of an equivalent to a zombie dragon.
The best tactic was loose skirmishing groups of light infantry, with no armour and light missile weapons such as javelins and bows.
Apart from the lack of heavy plate armour and warhammers these loose formations were probably fairly similar to AoS groups, only they had to be careful not to get caught by formed infantry or cavalry, since being spread out they lacked mutual support and heavy weapons, and were easily defeated by formed troops.
Interesting. I was under the impression not a lot was known for sure about Elephant tactics, but it was thought they were easily scared by in battle and didn't fare well against javelins.
As far as we can tell from the limited historical accounts, elephants weren't scared by formed bodies of troops in the same way as cavalry might be, perhaps because elephants are so much larger and tougher than horses, as well as being more frightening to the enemy. They were subject to problems like going on a rampage in any direction including back towards their own side, due to fear, pain of wounds, and losing their drivers. However, the impact when an elephant hit a heavy infantry block like a phalanx or cohort of Roman legionaries was massive, whereas loose groups of unformed light troops would simply evade and continue with missile attacks that could kill the crew and wear down the beast or turn it off course.
MWHistorian wrote: ..Large warbeasts aren't a fantasy thing. Elephants are quite large and were used in warfare. Concentrated missile fire and formation movements stopped them.
Someone asked about modern warfare. I told them my first hand experiences which also happen to match up with everyone else I've spoken to.
If you have different experiences or evidence, please, bring it forward. If you want to ignore first hand accounts of warfare, that's your call. But I urge you to go research the topic on your own and learn about it so you're not coming from a position of ignorance. You will find that my experiences do reflect the reality.
Yeah and you dismissed them for not being a soldier, they could be anyone with any experience.
Your experiences reflect your reality not everyone else's. Try to bring that to the discussion rather than carte blanche assuming it trumps all others.
Talk about ignorance.
So, you have nothing to offer the conversation expect constantly attacking me?
The poster didn't have experience or knowledge of modern combat. I answered the question with first hand experience. And yes, I do think that first hand experience trumps ignorance. Crazy, I know.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, mwhistorian, in modern warfare, how often do soldiers flank up? Exactly. In a skirmish game when 10-20 guys are moving around looking for an enemy they aren't going to do so staring straight ahead in a block. That is stupid. There will be guys who's job it is to look behind and to the side in case someone is sneaking up. In this world daemons will materialise from nothing against a moments notice, and chameleonic lizard people will step from the trees and soundlessly kill a whole platoon whenever they feel like. The tactics you're proposing as to how you win wars would have lost every single conflict in the warhammer world. Why would they use them?
Wait, are you trying to lecture a combat veteran on modern warfare?
Oh boy.
Yes, flanking is still a very very important part of modern warfare.
I served 10 years in the airborne infantry and we flanked all the time from platoon level all the way to battalion level. Yes flanking is a very important part of modern warfare
I did indeed mean to say rank up, and I am sorry for the confusion. Also, an elephant can't drop from the sky and breath poison gass while not feeling fear or pain and swallowing people whole. The point with age of sigmar is if you like the look of a phalanx, make a phalanx! If you don't think it's the right tool for the job, don't use it!
The fog of war is a real concept, I understand that to be the case without having witnessed it my self. But like you said, in a best case scenario you do have people watching the flanks and rear when on the move. When you are controlling the units on the table those decisions are yours and the game allows you to make them without needing a rule for them. Ambush specialists get bonuses to their combat capabilities when they get the drop on things is a much cleaner system than writing down what the bonuses are in the core rules and then saying later what gets those bonuses.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I did indeed mean to say rank up, and I am sorry for the confusion. Also, an elephant can't drop from the sky and breath poison gass while not feeling fear or pain and swallowing people whole. The point with age of sigmar is if you like the look of a phalanx, make a phalanx! If you don't think it's the right tool for the job, don't use it!
I haven't made myself clear. Read my link and it will explain it in more depth than I can here, but I'll try.
I understand that fantasy has things that don't exist in real life. Counter measures would have to be developed against those threats. What I'm saying is that even with such fantastical elements, the core reality has to be there.
For example. You can't break fundemental laws of reality without an explanation. You can't have soldiers not tire or not need food, without explanation because it breaks with the real world. How this applies to military situations are, you can't have an army without a baggage train unless there was something else that explained how that was possible. Teleporting supply chests, I don't know. There are certain rules of war that can't be broken without a logical and well thought out reason why. (like flanking, ambushes, chain of command, etc)
Let's take your air dropable poison breathing elephant. Does Side A have access to flying creatures as well? Are they able to prevent said poisonphants from dropping into friendly lines? Why? Why not? Do they have very good anti-air? Is this a totally new weapon and Side A hasn't had time to make a countermeasure? If so, then they're screwed no matter what, like Byzantines using flame throwers against the Arab fleets. (Cool story, but wouldn't make a good wargame. Kind of like the newest Eldar dex.)
What I'm saying is that war is complex and there are will be measures and countermeasures that must change. If AOS's open formations are open, let there be a reason for it. Without it, it just seems lazy and without much thought put into it.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I did indeed mean to say rank up, and I am sorry for the confusion. Also, an elephant can't drop from the sky and breath poison gass while not feeling fear or pain and swallowing people whole. The point with age of sigmar is if you like the look of a phalanx, make a phalanx! If you don't think it's the right tool for the job, don't use it!
I haven't made myself clear. Read my link and it will explain it in more depth than I can here, but I'll try.
I understand that fantasy has things that don't exist in real life. Counter measures would have to be developed against those threats. What I'm saying is that even with such fantastical elements, the core reality has to be there.
For example. You can't break fundemental laws of reality without an explanation. You can't have soldiers not tire or not need food, without explanation because it breaks with the real world. How this applies to military situations are, you can't have an army without a baggage train unless there was something else that explained how that was possible. Teleporting supply chests, I don't know. There are certain rules of war that can't be broken without a logical and well thought out reason why. (like flanking, ambushes, chain of command, etc)
Let's take your air dropable poison breathing elephant. Does Side A have access to flying creatures as well? Are they able to prevent said poisonphants from dropping into friendly lines? Why? Why not? Do they have very good anti-air? Is this a totally new weapon and Side A hasn't had time to make a countermeasure? If so, then they're screwed no matter what, like Byzantines using flame throwers against the Arab fleets. (Cool story, but wouldn't make a good wargame. Kind of like the newest Eldar dex.)
What I'm saying is that war is complex and there are will be measures and countermeasures that must change. If AOS's open formations are open, let there be a reason for it. Without it, it just seems lazy and without much thought put into it.
I think the reasons is simply that it's easier to learn and makes for quicker games. Remember, GW's internal mantra for a long time when training people was the 4 F's... Fast, Furious, Fun and Fours. In other words, they want the games to go fast, have lots of action, be fun for the players and the base mechanic be as simple as rolling a 4 or higher to see if something works.
Formations add to the complexity of movement and charges? Cut them. Flank charges add complexity? Cut them. Strength and Toughness adds complexity? Cut them. Force org charts keep you from playing what you want? Cut them. Points make putting a list together take more than 30 seconds? Cut them. Adding Heroes into units requires more rules? Cut that.
I think GW intentionally cut everything that added complexity and left us with a quicker game that's easy to learn and still has enough strategic/tactical decision making to satisfy the AVERAGE gamer. I still get to pick what I deploy, how I interact with terrain, what spells I cast, what General I take, where I move, who I target, whether or not to charge, etc. The decisions might not be as involved as they used to be, but they're still there.
I think it's important to remember that GW isn't trying to create a well reasoned out rules package to accurately reflect a real world battle scenario. They're trying to sell models. 8th Edition was bad at selling models, so they tried something in a different direction that seems to be doing a better job (based on anecdotal evidence from retailers on a variety of forums AND from gamers who say more people are playing at their stores) of selling models.
You can't do a phalanx in AoS. You can do a directionless phalanx shaped block.
If both immersion and gameplay reasons point to vulnerable flanks/rear of units/ models being better then the argument that it's fantasy is kind of desperate imo. It's fantasy so why can't the units shoot their swords from helmet catapults, ride their shields and throw their horses.
Also even if you added facing but allowed unengaded models to turn to incoming charge, the game still would be better and your "detailed" and "accurate" formations would actualy get, hm, almost detailed and accurate.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I did indeed mean to say rank up, and I am sorry for the confusion. Also, an elephant can't drop from the sky and breath poison gass while not feeling fear or pain and swallowing people whole. The point with age of sigmar is if you like the look of a phalanx, make a phalanx! If you don't think it's the right tool for the job, don't use it!
I haven't made myself clear. Read my link and it will explain it in more depth than I can here, but I'll try.
I understand that fantasy has things that don't exist in real life. Counter measures would have to be developed against those threats. What I'm saying is that even with such fantastical elements, the core reality has to be there.
For example. You can't break fundemental laws of reality without an explanation. You can't have soldiers not tire or not need food, without explanation because it breaks with the real world. How this applies to military situations are, you can't have an army without a baggage train unless there was something else that explained how that was possible. Teleporting supply chests, I don't know. There are certain rules of war that can't be broken without a logical and well thought out reason why. (like flanking, ambushes, chain of command, etc)
Let's take your air dropable poison breathing elephant. Does Side A have access to flying creatures as well? Are they able to prevent said poisonphants from dropping into friendly lines? Why? Why not? Do they have very good anti-air? Is this a totally new weapon and Side A hasn't had time to make a countermeasure? If so, then they're screwed no matter what, like Byzantines using flame throwers against the Arab fleets. (Cool story, but wouldn't make a good wargame. Kind of like the newest Eldar dex.)
What I'm saying is that war is complex and there are will be measures and countermeasures that must change. If AOS's open formations are open, let there be a reason for it. Without it, it just seems lazy and without much thought put into it.
I think the reasons is simply that it's easier to learn and makes for quicker games. Remember, GW's internal mantra for a long time when training people was the 4 F's... Fast, Furious, Fun and Fours. In other words, they want the games to go fast, have lots of action, be fun for the players and the base mechanic be as simple as rolling a 4 or higher to see if something works.
Formations add to the complexity of movement and charges? Cut them. Flank charges add complexity? Cut them. Strength and Toughness adds complexity? Cut them. Force org charts keep you from playing what you want? Cut them. Points make putting a list together take more than 30 seconds? Cut them. Adding Heroes into units requires more rules? Cut that.
I think GW intentionally cut everything that added complexity and left us with a quicker game that's easy to learn and still has enough strategic/tactical decision making to satisfy the AVERAGE gamer. I still get to pick what I deploy, how I interact with terrain, what spells I cast, what General I take, where I move, who I target, whether or not to charge, etc. The decisions might not be as involved as they used to be, but they're still there.
I think it's important to remember that GW isn't trying to create a well reasoned out rules package to accurately reflect a real world battle scenario. They're trying to sell models. 8th Edition was bad at selling models, so they tried something in a different direction that seems to be doing a better job (based on anecdotal evidence from retailers on a variety of forums AND from gamers who say more people are playing at their stores) of selling models.
Meaning it's a relatively shallow game! Thank you.
That's the whole point. You are right that there is still some strategic and tactical depth and maybe even enough skill ceiling to allow tournament play etc. It's just more shallow than other games and misses the expectations of the huge part of their player base.
If you enjoy it because it's quick and simple, all power to you, it's just claims that it has all the depth of the old game and more, or is some revolution or a hidden gem of game design that get those discussions going.
You can't do a phalanx in AoS. You can do a directionless phalanx shaped block.
If both immersion and gameplay reasons point to vulnerable flanks/rear of units/ models being better then the argument that it's fantasy is kind of desperate imo. It's fantasy so why can't the units shoot their swords from helmet catapults, ride their shields and throw their horses.
Also even if you added facing but allowed unengaded models to turn to incoming charge, the game still would be better and your "detailed" and "accurate" formations would actualy get, hm, almost detailed and accurate.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I did indeed mean to say rank up, and I am sorry for the confusion. Also, an elephant can't drop from the sky and breath poison gass while not feeling fear or pain and swallowing people whole. The point with age of sigmar is if you like the look of a phalanx, make a phalanx! If you don't think it's the right tool for the job, don't use it!
I haven't made myself clear. Read my link and it will explain it in more depth than I can here, but I'll try.
I understand that fantasy has things that don't exist in real life. Counter measures would have to be developed against those threats. What I'm saying is that even with such fantastical elements, the core reality has to be there.
For example. You can't break fundemental laws of reality without an explanation. You can't have soldiers not tire or not need food, without explanation because it breaks with the real world. How this applies to military situations are, you can't have an army without a baggage train unless there was something else that explained how that was possible. Teleporting supply chests, I don't know. There are certain rules of war that can't be broken without a logical and well thought out reason why. (like flanking, ambushes, chain of command, etc)
Let's take your air dropable poison breathing elephant. Does Side A have access to flying creatures as well? Are they able to prevent said poisonphants from dropping into friendly lines? Why? Why not? Do they have very good anti-air? Is this a totally new weapon and Side A hasn't had time to make a countermeasure? If so, then they're screwed no matter what, like Byzantines using flame throwers against the Arab fleets. (Cool story, but wouldn't make a good wargame. Kind of like the newest Eldar dex.)
What I'm saying is that war is complex and there are will be measures and countermeasures that must change. If AOS's open formations are open, let there be a reason for it. Without it, it just seems lazy and without much thought put into it.
I think the reasons is simply that it's easier to learn and makes for quicker games. Remember, GW's internal mantra for a long time when training people was the 4 F's... Fast, Furious, Fun and Fours. In other words, they want the games to go fast, have lots of action, be fun for the players and the base mechanic be as simple as rolling a 4 or higher to see if something works.
Formations add to the complexity of movement and charges? Cut them. Flank charges add complexity? Cut them. Strength and Toughness adds complexity? Cut them. Force org charts keep you from playing what you want? Cut them. Points make putting a list together take more than 30 seconds? Cut them. Adding Heroes into units requires more rules? Cut that.
I think GW intentionally cut everything that added complexity and left us with a quicker game that's easy to learn and still has enough strategic/tactical decision making to satisfy the AVERAGE gamer. I still get to pick what I deploy, how I interact with terrain, what spells I cast, what General I take, where I move, who I target, whether or not to charge, etc. The decisions might not be as involved as they used to be, but they're still there.
I think it's important to remember that GW isn't trying to create a well reasoned out rules package to accurately reflect a real world battle scenario. They're trying to sell models. 8th Edition was bad at selling models, so they tried something in a different direction that seems to be doing a better job (based on anecdotal evidence from retailers on a variety of forums AND from gamers who say more people are playing at their stores) of selling models.
Meaning it's a relatively shallow game! Thank you.
That's the whole point. You are right that there is still some strategic and tactical depth and maybe even enough skill ceiling to allow tournament play etc. It's just more shallow than other games and misses the expectations of the huge part of their player base.
If you enjoy it because it's quick and simple, all power to you, it's just claims that it has all the depth of the old game and more, or is some revolution or a hidden gem of game design that get those discussions going.
Relative to what? It has more strategic and tactical depth than chess. It has less than 8th Edition. Chess sells. 8th Edition didn't. Your comments mean more if you stop using hedging language. "It's a relatively shallow game" means nothing because I don't know what you're using as a basis for comparison.
It's also not fair to say it misses the expectations of a huge part of their player base. What is a huge part? ...the vocal minority that posts online? ...the tournament goers? Have their been any proper surveys done, or is this just anecdotal evidence based on a limited number of particularly noisy people?
Realistically, you can say the following...
Warhammer Age of Sigmar has a simpler rule set than Warhammer 8th Edition did. Some of the strategic and tactical decisions that were important in 8th Edition are no longer important in Age of Sigmar. There are some new strategic and tactical decisions to make in Age of Sigmar that didn't exist in 8th Edition. This is expected, as they are two different games that coincidentally use the same game pieces. These changes make some people happy, while they make others unhappy. 8th Edition was not selling as well as GW would have liked and as such can be considered a failure. It is too early to tell whether or not Age of Sigmar is selling better than 8th Edition, but there does appear to be more interest at many stores that has resulted in additional sales that were unlikely to have occurred otherwise. The next set of financial reports published by GW will let us know whether or not these additional sales are commonplace or anomalies.
Relative to what? It has more strategic and tactical depth than chess. It has less than 8th Edition. Chess sells. 8th Edition didn't. Your comments mean more if you stop using hedging language. "It's a relatively shallow game" means nothing because I don't know what you're using as a basis for comparison.
Mymearan wrote: Haven't people already given many examples on how flanking does indeed give an advantage in AoS, just not one tied to a specific Flanking rule? Here are some I found in this thread but I've read others writing more stuff in other threads.
Now, I was asked about balance as a way to steer clear of my question put forth about tactical validity. I will ask again, can you name one table top wargaming tactic that exists that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar?
Are you asking if AOS has typical wargamming stuff missing?
No bonuses for flanking.
If I am hitting a flank they are either pulling that direction or not moving. That will keep them from possibly getting the bonuses for terrain or the capture ground sudden death victory condition. If I out flank attack fro two sides they divide their attacks and have almost no chance to retreat. So there are definite bonuses to doing either of those things.
And, what bonus does the game give for flank attacks for those? What are the bonuses for maneuvering in those games? With AoS, my bonuses for maneuvering based on terrain utilization, propper use of area of effect bonuses from different units, gaining statistical advantages by limiting enemy rebuttal, and denial of the enemy's ability to bring in reinforcements due to the safe zone surrounding my units (3" area you can never enter in the movement phase, the various distances a unit in reserves must maintain upon arival, and the 9" bubble you can't summon within) so there are your easy to understand, apparently under utilised, bonuses for tactical maneuvering.
That's a lot of big words for tiny things that will rarely be revant to the game outcome. It doesn't tell you how the "statistical advantages by limiting enemy rebutall" works only against big units that also happen to be formed so they have a short side or how most of the time you better just charge asap. Or how situational and unreliable it is.
Don't get me wrong, it's good there is something at least but it's a pale shadow of what is in KoW or whfb 6th/ 7th.
But if you are OK with unengaged models turning automatically, what does it matter?
Also, the game isn't shallow, it is simple. Lack of depth would equate to a game that caps how good you can be at strategy at a very low level. That isn't the case here. That block of infantry that you want to flank, every time they stop the porcupi e out to keep from being flanked. Which is what they would do if they were trying to hold ground and weren't sure where the enemy is.
Also, yes, war IS complex. We aren't playing an entire war in the span of an afternoon here folks. This is a battle. You don't need to worry about supply lines without the use of an ongoing campaign to make it relevant to later BATTLES. What you have on a table is armies meeting in full force, over the course of a day, with their supply chains and chain of command fully intact because their general has all the info needed to try and see his army through the conflict.
Supply chains, breaking down of command structure, long term effects on morale, hell even logistical restraints on reinforcements and not the native population reacts to the forces present are never something that should be settled over the course of two hours. And other than a generic ability to get behind people without them being able to turn around, those things aren't represented in the core rules of any tabletop miniatures game I've ever heard of.
You want reasons why, say it out loud during the game. "Dragons have been spotted" or "they are known to have scouts nearby" or even "we lost track of several of their units, search patterns everyone!"
You want reasons for formations "surround the archers to keep cavalry at bay" "form up a phalanx to keep them from dividing our numbers and surrounding us" or " fill in the ends of this alleyway to keep them from getting through to the artillery"
There are mechanical reasons to do all of these things, tactical reasons to make them beneficial, and tactical changes to make in order to combat them effectively. But somehow that is cheaper in some people's eyes because they want to get more benefits than are given for getting behind SOME of these options on the tabletop.
Relative to other major tt wargames, I said it many times before. And chess obviously lol though it's a different kind of game.
Yes it's anectodal and a guess that it missed expectations of a huge part of a player base. Still true heh. Are you saying that the whfb player base wanted a quick and simple ruleset? They bought awful lot of army books for such a minimalist bunch.
Relative to what? It has more strategic and tactical depth than chess. It has less than 8th Edition. Chess sells. 8th Edition didn't. Your comments mean more if you stop using hedging language. "It's a relatively shallow game" means nothing because I don't know what you're using as a basis for comparison.
Every other table top game out there.
You've done a comprehensive comparison against every other table top game ever made? Wow. That's incredible. How long did that take and can you publish your findings?
I would be absolutely shocked to find that Age of Sigmar is the least complex tabletop game ever sold. I've seen some pretty dull games lacking any depth at all in the past. Hell, there's a tabletop game on Kickstarter right now that can fit in an Altoids tin and uses a couple of wooden counters to represent a battle between a party of adventurers and a dragon. I guess that's more tactically complex?
It feels very much like you're being a little dramatic right now.
Relative to other major tt wargames, I said it many times before. And chess obviously lol though it's a different kind of game.
Yes it's anectodal and a guess that it missed expectations of a huge part of a player base. Still true heh. Are you saying that the whfb player base wanted a quick and simple ruleset? They bought awful lot of army books for such a minimalist bunch.
I'm saying that GW doesn't care in any way, shape or form what the previous WFB player base wanted because they weren't buying anything. They didn't buy enough army books and they didn't buy enough models. A company can't base it's business decisions on trying to please a customer base who doesn't buy things. A change was obviously needed and one was made. Whether the change will improve sales or not will become obvious over time.
I think the reasons is simply that it's easier to learn and makes for quicker games. Remember, GW's internal mantra for a long time when training people was the 4 F's... Fast, Furious, Fun and Fours. In other words, they want the games to go fast, have lots of action, be fun for the players and the base mechanic be as simple as rolling a 4 or higher to see if something works.
Formations add to the complexity of movement and charges? Cut them. Flank charges add complexity? Cut them. Strength and Toughness adds complexity? Cut them. Force org charts keep you from playing what you want? Cut them. Points make putting a list together take more than 30 seconds? Cut them. Adding Heroes into units requires more rules? Cut that.
I think GW intentionally cut everything that added complexity and left us with a quicker game that's easy to learn and still has enough strategic/tactical decision making to satisfy the AVERAGE gamer. I still get to pick what I deploy, how I interact with terrain, what spells I cast, what General I take, where I move, who I target, whether or not to charge, etc. The decisions might not be as involved as they used to be, but they're still there.
I think it's important to remember that GW isn't trying to create a well reasoned out rules package to accurately reflect a real world battle scenario. They're trying to sell models. 8th Edition was bad at selling models, so they tried something in a different direction that seems to be doing a better job (based on anecdotal evidence from retailers on a variety of forums AND from gamers who say more people are playing at their stores) of selling models.
+1, well posted.
And whilst it is a cut down rule set removing many of the old tactical plays and tactics, as people previously have demonstrated it still does have a level of tactical depth to it.
Is this point still in contention?
That depth is necessarily less deep than more complex, slower to learn and play rule sets that have rules covering areas of warfare that are not included in AoS and affect tactics.
I mean, this is undeniable, and people should not see it as a defect. The game is meant to be relatively simple to learn and play. As well say it is a defect that more complex games are more complex. There is nothing wrong with complexity if you are looking for it.
You cannot include all of warfare in four pages of rules.
AoS is simple and shallow. Chess is simple but deep.
I'm not ok with unengaged models turning automaticaly. But if they did and become engaged, they couldn't turn anymore and the second unit fighting it could get to their backs. Still a bonus for flanking and you'd have your soldiers turning to danger.
The rest is talking in circles. You can't have any specifics of formations, if you think all that defines a phalanx is standing in square then I'm sure AoS is everything you need. I can fill in the end of an alleyway with my ranked units and surrounding the archers in AoS is crude and inaccurate just like all the "detailed" formations there.
I think the reasons is simply that it's easier to learn and makes for quicker games. Remember, GW's internal mantra for a long time when training people was the 4 F's... Fast, Furious, Fun and Fours. In other words, they want the games to go fast, have lots of action, be fun for the players and the base mechanic be as simple as rolling a 4 or higher to see if something works.
Formations add to the complexity of movement and charges? Cut them. Flank charges add complexity? Cut them. Strength and Toughness adds complexity? Cut them. Force org charts keep you from playing what you want? Cut them. Points make putting a list together take more than 30 seconds? Cut them. Adding Heroes into units requires more rules? Cut that.
I think GW intentionally cut everything that added complexity and left us with a quicker game that's easy to learn and still has enough strategic/tactical decision making to satisfy the AVERAGE gamer. I still get to pick what I deploy, how I interact with terrain, what spells I cast, what General I take, where I move, who I target, whether or not to charge, etc. The decisions might not be as involved as they used to be, but they're still there.
I think it's important to remember that GW isn't trying to create a well reasoned out rules package to accurately reflect a real world battle scenario. They're trying to sell models. 8th Edition was bad at selling models, so they tried something in a different direction that seems to be doing a better job (based on anecdotal evidence from retailers on a variety of forums AND from gamers who say more people are playing at their stores) of selling models.
+1, well posted.
And whilst it is a cut down rule set removing many of the old tactical plays and tactics, as people previously have demonstrated it still does have a level of tactical depth to it.
Is this point still in contention?
No the actual state of discussion is advocates claiming AoS is a deeper game than chess. I wonder what's next.
What part of a phalanx can have four sides facing out to keep attackers at bay in every other situation besides tabletop war games aren't you guys paying attention to?
Why does every phalanx in your eyes have to be on the move and not paying attention to their surroundings so you can generate some extra benefit? A phalanx on the move, or attacked from an UNEXPECTED QUARTER is indeed going to collapse. What you are wanting is for them to EASILY be out maneuvered and crushed in game terms. That isn't what happens. The unit turns to face people AS THEY MOVE AROUND THEM TO ENGAGE. They don't stand there in real life and let the cavalry who just ran past hit them for a while until they decide as a group to turn and face them. They certainly didn't stop protecting and fighting one side of the phalanx because someone hit the other side. Why should I be forced to consider these obvious phalacies in a table top game in order to somehow make it more interesting and realistic?
That's not at all how phallanxes performed in battle. Turning about to face an enemy was not an easy thing to do. A phallanx hit ftom the side or rear would be decimated. Look up thar battle I mentioned earlier and you'll see exactly what im talking about.
By what measure is AoS shallow? Do you mean to say that it is shallow in comparison to something else, or that in the grand scheme of game depth, on a scale of Tic-Tac-Toe to Advanced Squad Leader, it would be in the bottom 10%?
EDIT - Forget Advanced Squad Leader. The most complex game has to be The Campaign for North Africa - a 10 player game is listed at 1,200 hours long. I fully admit that AoS does not compare.
No the actual state of discussion is advocates claiming AoS is a deeper game than chess. I wonder what's next.
Before anyone starts comparing game depths, we should really agree on a definition of "deep gameplay". Certainly, AoS is deeper and more complex than Chess in several ways, such as variety in game pieces/boards/rules, as well as the number of goals and how to succeed at them. Because of the randomness and the variable armies, player tactical decisions are less important than Chess, with identical sides and predictive gameplay. So you could say that AoS is deeper than Chess and that Chess is deeper than AoS, and not be incorrect either way.
MWHistorian wrote: That's not at all how phallanxes performed in battle. Turning about to face an enemy was not an easy thing to do. A phallanx hit ftom the side or rear would be decimated. Look up thar battle I mentioned earlier and you'll see exactly what im talking about.
How big was the phalanx? I am talking about the 20 odd guys you see on the table. It is not hard to turn, especially for trained soldiers standing still, watching the enemy advance. And what about the fact that they could (and did) stand in formation with weapons pointed out in order to protect an area or important person?
It was used, it had merit, it can be done any time they stopped walking, but for some reason you dont want them to do it in a game. My elven spearmen are more dextrous with faster minds and better hand-eye coordination than any human can ever achieve, why limit them to what human peasants did in the real world?
I can't understand why severely limiting options for the sake of a specific bonus is considered more tactical. And it is not because I am stubborn, it really doesn't make sense.
Impossible! Inconceivable! There is no way Age of Sigmar could possibly be fun! The Interwebz and "They" say so! 
